http://www.ipwatchdog.com Patents, Software Patents, Patent Applications & Patent Law Sun, 19 May 2013 12:30:46 +0000 en-US hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/16/are-robots-patent-eligible/id=40430/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/16/are-robots-patent-eligible/id=40430/#comments Thu, 16 May 2013 14:14:51 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=40430 Related posts:

1. 5 CAFC Judges Say Computers Patentable, Not SoftwarePerpetuating the myth that the computer is where the magic lies does nothing other than ignore reality. Software is what makes everything happen. or crying out loud, software drives a multitude of machines! Maybe the auto mechanic for Judges Judges Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna and Wallach should remove the software from their cars. Perhaps as they are stranded and forced to walk to work they might have time to contemplate the world they seem to want to force upon the rest of us; a world hat clings to mechanical machines completely non-reliant on software. That will be great for the...
2. Is IBM’s Watson Still Patent Eligible?Watson? It is an artificially intelligent computer system that is capable of answering questions presented in natural language. It is, in essence, the modern day equivalent to the all knowing Star Trek computer. It is flat out ridiculous to be asking whether the Star Trek omnipotent computer could be patent eligible, that that is where we find ourselves because what makes the computer unique is the software that makes it possible for Watson to perform 80 trillion operations per second. But Federal Circuit Judges say that mere fact that software is fast doesn't make it patent eligible unless there is...
3. Did the Federal Circuit Ignore the Supreme Court in CLS Bank?While the Supreme Court has done away with the "useful, concrete and tangible result" test from State Street Bank v. Signature Financial, in Bilski v. Kappos, 8 out of 9 Justices (i.e., everyone except Justice Scalia) signed onto an opinion that recognized that the patent claims in State Street displayed patent eligible subject matter. Indeed, the dissenters in Bilski specifically acknowledged that the claims at issue in State Street did not deal with processes, but dealt with machines. See Footnote 40 of the Steven's dissent. The import of this is that machines are specifically patent eligible subject matter, so if...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/16/are-robots-patent-eligible/id=40430/feed/ 15 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/15/what-happened-to-judge-lourie-in-cls-bank-v-alice-corp/id=40387/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/15/what-happened-to-judge-lourie-in-cls-bank-v-alice-corp/id=40387/#comments Wed, 15 May 2013 11:45:56 +0000 Sue D. Nym http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=40387 Related posts:

1. 5 CAFC Judges Say Computers Patentable, Not SoftwarePerpetuating the myth that the computer is where the magic lies does nothing other than ignore reality. Software is what makes everything happen. or crying out loud, software drives a multitude of machines! Maybe the auto mechanic for Judges Judges Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna and Wallach should remove the software from their cars. Perhaps as they are stranded and forced to walk to work they might have time to contemplate the world they seem to want to force upon the rest of us; a world hat clings to mechanical machines completely non-reliant on software. That will be great for the...
2. Federal Circuit Nightmare in CLS Bank v. Alice Corp.The only thing we know is this — the Federal Circuit issued an extraordinarily brief per curiam decision, which stated: "Upon consideration en banc, a majority of the court affirms the district court’s holding that the asserted method and computer-readable media claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. An equally divided court affirms the district court’s holding that the asserted system claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under that statute." Thus, the asserted claims are not patent eligible....
3. Is IBM’s Watson Still Patent Eligible?Watson? It is an artificially intelligent computer system that is capable of answering questions presented in natural language. It is, in essence, the modern day equivalent to the all knowing Star Trek computer. It is flat out ridiculous to be asking whether the Star Trek omnipotent computer could be patent eligible, that that is where we find ourselves because what makes the computer unique is the software that makes it possible for Watson to perform 80 trillion operations per second. But Federal Circuit Judges say that mere fact that software is fast doesn't make it patent eligible unless there is...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/15/what-happened-to-judge-lourie-in-cls-bank-v-alice-corp/id=40387/feed/ 88 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/14/the-alice-in-wonderland-en-banc-decision-by-the-federal-circuit-in-cls-bank-v-alice-corp/id=40344/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/14/the-alice-in-wonderland-en-banc-decision-by-the-federal-circuit-in-cls-bank-v-alice-corp/id=40344/#comments Tue, 14 May 2013 19:16:13 +0000 John Kong http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=40344 Related posts:

1. 5 CAFC Judges Say Computers Patentable, Not SoftwarePerpetuating the myth that the computer is where the magic lies does nothing other than ignore reality. Software is what makes everything happen. or crying out loud, software drives a multitude of machines! Maybe the auto mechanic for Judges Judges Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna and Wallach should remove the software from their cars. Perhaps as they are stranded and forced to walk to work they might have time to contemplate the world they seem to want to force upon the rest of us; a world hat clings to mechanical machines completely non-reliant on software. That will be great for the...
2. Federal Circuit Nightmare in CLS Bank v. Alice Corp.The only thing we know is this — the Federal Circuit issued an extraordinarily brief per curiam decision, which stated: "Upon consideration en banc, a majority of the court affirms the district court’s holding that the asserted method and computer-readable media claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. An equally divided court affirms the district court’s holding that the asserted system claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under that statute." Thus, the asserted claims are not patent eligible....
3. Is IBM’s Watson Still Patent Eligible?Watson? It is an artificially intelligent computer system that is capable of answering questions presented in natural language. It is, in essence, the modern day equivalent to the all knowing Star Trek computer. It is flat out ridiculous to be asking whether the Star Trek omnipotent computer could be patent eligible, that that is where we find ourselves because what makes the computer unique is the software that makes it possible for Watson to perform 80 trillion operations per second. But Federal Circuit Judges say that mere fact that software is fast doesn't make it patent eligible unless there is...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/14/the-alice-in-wonderland-en-banc-decision-by-the-federal-circuit-in-cls-bank-v-alice-corp/id=40344/feed/ 6 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/13/did-the-federal-circuit-ignore-the-supreme-court-in-cls-bank/id=40267/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/13/did-the-federal-circuit-ignore-the-supreme-court-in-cls-bank/id=40267/#comments Mon, 13 May 2013 16:40:36 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=40267 Related posts:

1. Federal Circuit Nightmare in CLS Bank v. Alice Corp.The only thing we know is this — the Federal Circuit issued an extraordinarily brief per curiam decision, which stated: "Upon consideration en banc, a majority of the court affirms the district court’s holding that the asserted method and computer-readable media claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. An equally divided court affirms the district court’s holding that the asserted system claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under that statute." Thus, the asserted claims are not patent eligible....
2. Business Methods (and Software) are Still Patentable!For at least the past 15 years, the legal, technical and academic communities have been debating the patentability of business methods and software. Despite much negative press ink, talk, legislative activity and court opinions, the answer with respect to patent eligibility is still a resounding and categorical “yes.” That’s the easy part. What types of business methods and software exactly are patentable? That is the difficult question to answer....
3. 5 CAFC Judges Say Computers Patentable, Not SoftwarePerpetuating the myth that the computer is where the magic lies does nothing other than ignore reality. Software is what makes everything happen. or crying out loud, software drives a multitude of machines! Maybe the auto mechanic for Judges Judges Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna and Wallach should remove the software from their cars. Perhaps as they are stranded and forced to walk to work they might have time to contemplate the world they seem to want to force upon the rest of us; a world hat clings to mechanical machines completely non-reliant on software. That will be great for the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/13/did-the-federal-circuit-ignore-the-supreme-court-in-cls-bank/id=40267/feed/ 24 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/13/is-ibms-watson-still-patent-eligible/id=40264/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/13/is-ibms-watson-still-patent-eligible/id=40264/#comments Mon, 13 May 2013 11:45:24 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=40264 Related posts:

1. 5 CAFC Judges Say Computers Patentable, Not SoftwarePerpetuating the myth that the computer is where the magic lies does nothing other than ignore reality. Software is what makes everything happen. or crying out loud, software drives a multitude of machines! Maybe the auto mechanic for Judges Judges Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna and Wallach should remove the software from their cars. Perhaps as they are stranded and forced to walk to work they might have time to contemplate the world they seem to want to force upon the rest of us; a world hat clings to mechanical machines completely non-reliant on software. That will be great for the...
2. Federal Circuit Nightmare in CLS Bank v. Alice Corp.The only thing we know is this — the Federal Circuit issued an extraordinarily brief per curiam decision, which stated: "Upon consideration en banc, a majority of the court affirms the district court’s holding that the asserted method and computer-readable media claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. An equally divided court affirms the district court’s holding that the asserted system claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under that statute." Thus, the asserted claims are not patent eligible....
3. Did the Federal Circuit Ignore the Supreme Court in CLS Bank?While the Supreme Court has done away with the "useful, concrete and tangible result" test from State Street Bank v. Signature Financial, in Bilski v. Kappos, 8 out of 9 Justices (i.e., everyone except Justice Scalia) signed onto an opinion that recognized that the patent claims in State Street displayed patent eligible subject matter. Indeed, the dissenters in Bilski specifically acknowledged that the claims at issue in State Street did not deal with processes, but dealt with machines. See Footnote 40 of the Steven's dissent. The import of this is that machines are specifically patent eligible subject matter, so if...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/13/is-ibms-watson-still-patent-eligible/id=40264/feed/ 36 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/12/5-cafc-judges-say-computers-patentable-not-software/id=40251/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/12/5-cafc-judges-say-computers-patentable-not-software/id=40251/#comments Sun, 12 May 2013 16:54:45 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=40251 Related posts:

1. Federal Circuit Nightmare in CLS Bank v. Alice Corp.The only thing we know is this — the Federal Circuit issued an extraordinarily brief per curiam decision, which stated: "Upon consideration en banc, a majority of the court affirms the district court’s holding that the asserted method and computer-readable media claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. An equally divided court affirms the district court’s holding that the asserted system claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under that statute." Thus, the asserted claims are not patent eligible....
2. Is IBM’s Watson Still Patent Eligible?Watson? It is an artificially intelligent computer system that is capable of answering questions presented in natural language. It is, in essence, the modern day equivalent to the all knowing Star Trek computer. It is flat out ridiculous to be asking whether the Star Trek omnipotent computer could be patent eligible, that that is where we find ourselves because what makes the computer unique is the software that makes it possible for Watson to perform 80 trillion operations per second. But Federal Circuit Judges say that mere fact that software is fast doesn't make it patent eligible unless there is...
3. Are Robots Patent Eligible?Why have claims if the claims don't matter. Essentially Judge Lourie, and the Canadian Patent Office too, are saying ignore the claims and read the specification to determine what the innovation is and then without regard to the language of the claims make your determination. Under this viewpoint claims are simply irrelevant. Yet we know that claims are not irrelevant, and such a view is directly contrary to the Patent Act itself. Ignoring claims is utterly ridiculous given inventions are not patentable. Patent claims are supposed to be evaluating NOT the entirety of the invention. The sine quo non of...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/12/5-cafc-judges-say-computers-patentable-not-software/id=40251/feed/ 17 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/10/federal-circuit-nightmare-in-cls-bank-v-alice-corp/id=40230/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/10/federal-circuit-nightmare-in-cls-bank-v-alice-corp/id=40230/#comments Fri, 10 May 2013 17:26:50 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=40230 Related posts:

1. Did the Federal Circuit Ignore the Supreme Court in CLS Bank?While the Supreme Court has done away with the "useful, concrete and tangible result" test from State Street Bank v. Signature Financial, in Bilski v. Kappos, 8 out of 9 Justices (i.e., everyone except Justice Scalia) signed onto an opinion that recognized that the patent claims in State Street displayed patent eligible subject matter. Indeed, the dissenters in Bilski specifically acknowledged that the claims at issue in State Street did not deal with processes, but dealt with machines. See Footnote 40 of the Steven's dissent. The import of this is that machines are specifically patent eligible subject matter, so if...
2. 5 CAFC Judges Say Computers Patentable, Not SoftwarePerpetuating the myth that the computer is where the magic lies does nothing other than ignore reality. Software is what makes everything happen. or crying out loud, software drives a multitude of machines! Maybe the auto mechanic for Judges Judges Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna and Wallach should remove the software from their cars. Perhaps as they are stranded and forced to walk to work they might have time to contemplate the world they seem to want to force upon the rest of us; a world hat clings to mechanical machines completely non-reliant on software. That will be great for the...
3. Business Methods (and Software) are Still Patentable!For at least the past 15 years, the legal, technical and academic communities have been debating the patentability of business methods and software. Despite much negative press ink, talk, legislative activity and court opinions, the answer with respect to patent eligibility is still a resounding and categorical “yes.” That’s the easy part. What types of business methods and software exactly are patentable? That is the difficult question to answer....

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/10/federal-circuit-nightmare-in-cls-bank-v-alice-corp/id=40230/feed/ 325 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/05/software-patents-the-engineer-vs-designer-perspective/id=39575/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/05/software-patents-the-engineer-vs-designer-perspective/id=39575/#comments Sun, 05 May 2013 13:00:13 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=39575 Related posts:

1. Software Patents: Drafting for Litigation and a Global Economy On March 25, 2013, I spoke on the record with Eric Gould Bear (left) about software innovations, software patents and the trials and tribulations of litigating software patents long after they were first written. In Part I of our interview, titled Designing Into the Path of Disruptive Technology, we discussed the journey from ideas to designs that design a technology platform that could realistically be useful 5, 10 or more years down the road. In Part II of our interview, which appears below, we discuss drafting software patent applications with an eye toward litigation and the unfortunate reality that...
2. Designing Into the Path of Disruptive Technology: An Interview with Software Expert Eric Gould BearIt’s important to remember that ideas are a dime a dozen. And what matters at the end of the day, in my mind, is what works well for people. It comes down to making sure that your flash of genius is a fit for what’s valuable to real people in everyday life. Whether in a consumer space or in business, it doesn’t matter. The underlying principles of making great design come down to how people act in the world. How do they think about themselves? What do they feel about your product? What do they think about each other? And...
3. Writing Software Patent ApplicationsCollecting the information necessary to prepare a patent application covering a computer related invention can be quite challenging. Typically, most computer related inventions today relate at least in some way to software, which is at the core of the challenge. This software challenge stems from the fact that the software code is not protected by patent law, but rather how the software operates is protected. This means that the description needs to be one that can be replicated by others regardless of how they choose to write code to accomplish the necessary tasks. ...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/05/software-patents-the-engineer-vs-designer-perspective/id=39575/feed/ 0 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/30/software-patents-drafting-for-litigation-and-a-global-economy/id=39570/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/30/software-patents-drafting-for-litigation-and-a-global-economy/id=39570/#comments Tue, 30 Apr 2013 11:55:07 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=39570 Related posts:

1. Designing Into the Path of Disruptive Technology: An Interview with Software Expert Eric Gould BearIt’s important to remember that ideas are a dime a dozen. And what matters at the end of the day, in my mind, is what works well for people. It comes down to making sure that your flash of genius is a fit for what’s valuable to real people in everyday life. Whether in a consumer space or in business, it doesn’t matter. The underlying principles of making great design come down to how people act in the world. How do they think about themselves? What do they feel about your product? What do they think about each other? And...
2. Software Patents: The Engineer vs. Designer PerspectiveAs a designer, I just like to be hands on, managing the quality of the work and making sure it communicates exactly what we need it to say. And, I’m the same in preparing for court. I like to create demonstratives and be the one giving tutorials to the court – because live presentations are often the best way to communicate how something works. Another visualization technique that’s really effective is storyboarding. Storyboards can show the change in a system over time. If this is the position of the device and this is what you see on screen at time...
3. On the Record with Manny Schecter, Part IIIn Part II of the interview, which is the final segment, we discuss how IBM keeps a watchful eye on the industry to learn from the mistakes of others, what the conversion to first to file will mean for IBM patents, how Watson is being deployed and David Kappos leaving the USPTO....

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/30/software-patents-drafting-for-litigation-and-a-global-economy/id=39570/feed/ 0 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/28/designing-into-the-path-of-disruptive-technology-an-interview-with-software-expert-eric-gould-bear/id=39553/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/28/designing-into-the-path-of-disruptive-technology-an-interview-with-software-expert-eric-gould-bear/id=39553/#comments Sun, 28 Apr 2013 14:30:23 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=39553 Related posts:

1. Software Patents: Drafting for Litigation and a Global Economy On March 25, 2013, I spoke on the record with Eric Gould Bear (left) about software innovations, software patents and the trials and tribulations of litigating software patents long after they were first written. In Part I of our interview, titled Designing Into the Path of Disruptive Technology, we discussed the journey from ideas to designs that design a technology platform that could realistically be useful 5, 10 or more years down the road. In Part II of our interview, which appears below, we discuss drafting software patent applications with an eye toward litigation and the unfortunate reality that...
2. Software Patents: The Engineer vs. Designer PerspectiveAs a designer, I just like to be hands on, managing the quality of the work and making sure it communicates exactly what we need it to say. And, I’m the same in preparing for court. I like to create demonstratives and be the one giving tutorials to the court – because live presentations are often the best way to communicate how something works. Another visualization technique that’s really effective is storyboarding. Storyboards can show the change in a system over time. If this is the position of the device and this is what you see on screen at time...
3. On the Record with Manny Schecter, IBM Chief Patent CounselWhenever there is interesting IBM news of a patent variety Schecter has been gracious enough to make time to chat. The news of IBM's patent supremacy wasn't just any run-of-the-mill news, at least not in my opinion. The commitment to innovation and belief in the patent system has served IBM well for many decades, and twenty years as #1 at anything is astounding in a world dominated by parity and antitrust regulators that don't want any single company to succeed too much. We discuss the commitment to excellence required to stay #1 for twenty years, the process for deciding which...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/28/designing-into-the-path-of-disruptive-technology-an-interview-with-software-expert-eric-gould-bear/id=39553/feed/ 1 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/20/writing-software-patent-applications-2/id=39417/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/20/writing-software-patent-applications-2/id=39417/#comments Sat, 20 Apr 2013 13:00:44 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=39417 Related posts:

1. Writing Software Patent ApplicationsWhen you sit down to collect the information necessary to create the "design document" you have to keep three things in mind. Any good patent application that covers a software related invention will need to put forth three specific pieces of information. First, you need to describe the overall computer architecture of the system within which the software will exist. Second, you need to prepare a single flowchart that depicts the overall working of the software. Third, you need to prepare a series of flow charts that show with painstaking detail the various routines and subroutines that together connect to...
2. A Guide to Patenting Software: Getting StartedAny good patent application that covers a software related invention will need to put forth three specific pieces of information. First, you need to describe the overall computer architecture of the system within which the software will exist. Second, you need to prepare a single flowchart that depicts the overall working of the software. Third, you need to prepare a series of flow charts that show with painstaking detail the various routines and subroutines that together connect to create and deliver the complete functionality of the computer system as enabled by the software. ...
3. Patent Drafting: Defining Computer Implemented ProcessesSo what information is required in order to demonstrate that there really is an invention that deserves to receive a patent? When examining computer implemented inventions the patent examiner will determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. An algorithm is defined by the Patent Offices as a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task. The...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/20/writing-software-patent-applications-2/id=39417/feed/ 11 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/17/fixing-the-patent-system-to-improve-innovation/id=39273/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/17/fixing-the-patent-system-to-improve-innovation/id=39273/#comments Wed, 17 Apr 2013 22:34:27 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=39273 Related posts:

1. Why All Small Businesses Need Software PatentsThe reason giant companies hate patent trolls is because they are not capable of being counter-sued. There is no deterrent effect because patent trolls do not make, use or sell anything, they just sue. So giant companies are targets in the same way that smaller companies without patents are targets of big companies with patents. No one should aspire to be a target. A simple truth is that a small business without patents might as well dress themselves up as a buck during hunting season complete with a bulls-eye pre-drawn. So here is the case for every business to get...
2. US Supreme Court Grants Cert. in BilskiThe United States Supreme Court granted cert. in Bilski v. Doll. This means that the last chapter on business methods and software has not yet been written, which could be good news or bad news depending upon your particular take. I have wondered out loud about allowing software patents as patentable subject matter, which I think is the right thing to do myself....
3. Google Sued for Patent Infringement Over Chrome CourgetteOn Monday, October 26, 2009, Google, Inc. was sued for patent infringement relating to its new Chrome browser by Red Bend, Ltd., an Israeli corporation and Red Bend Software, a Delaware corporation located in Waltham, Massachusetts.  Red Bend, Ltd. is the owner of US Patent No. 6,546,552, and Red Bend Software is the exclusive licensee [...]...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/17/fixing-the-patent-system-to-improve-innovation/id=39273/feed/ 42 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/11/patent-eligibility-today-are-software-methods-patentable/id=38985/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/11/patent-eligibility-today-are-software-methods-patentable/id=38985/#comments Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:05:27 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=38985 Related posts:

1. Patenting Business Methods and Software in the U.S.Any method claim that does not require machine implementation or does not cause a transformation will fail the test and will be rejected under § 101. The importance of this from a practical standpoint is that business methods not tied to a machine are going to be rejected under § 101 and the rejection will be difficult, if not impossible, to overcome....
2. Business Methods (and Software) are Still Patentable!For at least the past 15 years, the legal, technical and academic communities have been debating the patentability of business methods and software. Despite much negative press ink, talk, legislative activity and court opinions, the answer with respect to patent eligibility is still a resounding and categorical “yes.” That’s the easy part. What types of business methods and software exactly are patentable? That is the difficult question to answer....
3. CLS Bank v Alice – Federal Circuit Orders en banc RehearingIt is arguable that neither view is beyond criticism and that any emergent legal test as to patent-eligibility demands further development. There is much to commend the majority view that each of §§101, 102, 103 and 112 serves a different purpose and presents different questions and that under §101 only when it is apparent that the claimed subject-matter is a manifestly ineligible abstract idea should that subject-matter be excluded. Significant involvement of a computer in the working of the invention points towards invention....

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/11/patent-eligibility-today-are-software-methods-patentable/id=38985/feed/ 0 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/02/16/a-guide-to-patenting-software-getting-started/id=35629/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/02/16/a-guide-to-patenting-software-getting-started/id=35629/#comments Sat, 16 Feb 2013 19:17:57 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=35629 Related posts:

1. Patent Drafting: Defining Computer Implemented ProcessesSo what information is required in order to demonstrate that there really is an invention that deserves to receive a patent? When examining computer implemented inventions the patent examiner will determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. An algorithm is defined by the Patent Offices as a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task. The...
2. Defining Computer Related InventionsThe code itself and how it is written is protected via copyright, if at all, not through a patent. So when you are trying to define the invention so that it can be described adequately in a patent application you do not need to detail every language that could be used, and you do not need to provide an outline of the routines or subroutines, but what you do need to provide is enough information so that the computer programmer could translate your description into code, so you want to provide enough to allow the computer programmer to create the...
3. Writing Software Patent ApplicationsCollecting the information necessary to prepare a patent application covering a computer related invention can be quite challenging. Typically, most computer related inventions today relate at least in some way to software, which is at the core of the challenge. This software challenge stems from the fact that the software code is not protected by patent law, but rather how the software operates is protected. This means that the description needs to be one that can be replicated by others regardless of how they choose to write code to accomplish the necessary tasks. ...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/02/16/a-guide-to-patenting-software-getting-started/id=35629/feed/ 12 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/01/30/on-the-record-with-manny-schecter-part-ii/id=34251/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/01/30/on-the-record-with-manny-schecter-part-ii/id=34251/#comments Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:30:32 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=34251 Related posts:

1. On the Record with Manny Schecter, IBM Chief Patent CounselWhenever there is interesting IBM news of a patent variety Schecter has been gracious enough to make time to chat. The news of IBM's patent supremacy wasn't just any run-of-the-mill news, at least not in my opinion. The commitment to innovation and belief in the patent system has served IBM well for many decades, and twenty years as #1 at anything is astounding in a world dominated by parity and antitrust regulators that don't want any single company to succeed too much. We discuss the commitment to excellence required to stay #1 for twenty years, the process for deciding which...
2. Interview Finale: Manny Schecter, IBM Chief Patent CounselWe talked about Peer to Patent, Watson on Jeopardy, where the Supreme Court is heading with patent law, the usual fun questions to get to know Schecter on a personal level and more. As we moved into the "fun stuff" you will learn that one famous IBM invention was tested out in the early stages by the inventors on a Thanksgiving turkey one year, proving that innovation never takes a holiday! We also learn that Schecter is something of a James Bond fan, and selected one recent Academy Award winning film as his favorite movie....
3. An Interview with Manny Schecter, IBM Chief Patent CounselOn April 4, 2011, I had the honor to interview Manny Schecter, the Chief Patent Counsel for IBM Corporation. I met Manny in October 2010 when I did a CLE presentation at IBM's offices in Armonk, New York. Since that time I have worked to schedule a time to chat with him on the record, and we were recently able to coordinate and chatted on the record for approximately 60 minutes. During our conversation we talked about numerous topics, including patent reform, Microsoft v. i4i, Patent Office initiatives such as the Three Track initiative and Peer to Patent. We also...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/01/30/on-the-record-with-manny-schecter-part-ii/id=34251/feed/ 1