Burman York (Bud) Mathis III

Burman York (Bud) Mathis III

Burman York (Bud) Mathis III is a sole-practitioner in the Washington D.C. area with experience in patent drafting and prosecution, opinion writing, due diligence, litigation and appellate work. Mr. Mathis technical expertise and experience is far-ranging. For example, Mr. Mathis’ experience covers a wide variety of highly-technical subject matter that includes wired and wireless communications (including MIMO, 3G, 3GPP/LTE, D2D and 4G technology), analog and digital electronics, image processing, semiconductor devices and processes, solid-state physics, material science, printers and copiers, projectors, cameras, speech recognition and synthesis, xerography, cryptography, control systems, magnetic and optical disc technologies, fiber optics, MEMS technologies, nanosensors, GPS navigation systems, software, computer networking and business methods.


Posts by Burman York (Bud) Mathis III


The Search for the ‘Inventive Concept’ and Other Snipe Hunts

Everybody in the patent world is talking about the latest atrocity from the Federal Circuit known as the American Axle decision, but few actually appreciate the true …

It Is Time for Federal Circuit Judges of Good Conscience to Call Out Their Colleagues

Recently, IPWatchdog published an excellent article by Wen Xie outlining the legal inconsistencies of the Chamberlain v. Techtronic Industries opinion, penned by Judge Chen. Unfortunately, describing the …

Supreme Court Refusal to Hear Investpic Signals Death for Most Software Patent Applications

The Investpic v. SAP America case (Supreme Court Dkt. No. 18-1199), which is the 44th patent eligibility case to be considered for certiorari since the notorious Alice …

Supreme Court Denies 43rd Petition for Cert on 101 Grounds in Villena v. Iancu

Villena v. Iancu (Supreme Court Dkt. No. 18-1223), which is the 43rd patent eligibility case to be considered for certiorari since the notorious Alice Corp. decision, was …

An Abdication of Collective Responsibility by the Federal Circuit

The Federal Circuit has often demanded some technical advantage under § 101 when none is required by U.S. patent law. The Federal Circuit has also made § 101 more burdensome, …

At Age 46, it’s Time to Retire Benson

contrary to popular notion, U.S. Patent No. 4,344,142 to James Diehr was not the first attempt to patent the idea of performing a real-time simulation of the …

The Federal Circuit’s Hidden Agenda

One might naturally expect that, if a rejection under § 101 appealed from the PTAB failed to address all the claim limitations and had zero supporting evidence to determine …

The Death of Invention

George Santayana is attributed with the aphorism: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This is modern § 101 in a nutshell. Every horror we …

Judge Taranto, Meet Judge Taranto

Contrary to Judge Taranto’s position, not only does the McRO claim not produce a physical improvement to a display (contrast In re Allapat), but as can …

Categorical Rules and Why the Investpic Holding Should Worry Everyone

This assertion is a mischaracterization of Alice Corp., which never held that the intermediated settlement claims at issue in Alice Corp. were abstract because of the risk …

No Light at the End of the Tunnel, Not Even Close

It’s been over eight years since the Supreme Court issued its Bilski v Kappos decision, over six years since the Supreme Court issued its Mayo v. …