THE campaign to defang the “Do Not Track” movement began late last month.
The U.S. Federal Circuit on October 9, 2012 granted en banc review of a case in which a Federal Circuit panel held that a claim must not be deemed inadequate under 35 U.S.C. §101 if, after taking all of the claim recitations into consideration, it is not “manifestly evident” that a claim is directed to a patent ineligible abstract idea. CLS Bank International v. Alice Corp., Fed. Cir., No. 11-1301, 10/9/2012. Alice Corp is an Australian company, suing for patent infringement in the United States.
The en banc court vacated the panel decision and requested briefing on the following questions:
What test should the court adopt to determine whether a
computer-implemented invention is a patent ineligible "abstract idea”;
and when, if ever, does the presence of a computer in a claim lend
patent eligibility to an otherwise patent-ineligible idea?
In assessing patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of a
computer-implemented invention, should it matter whether the invention
is claimed as a method, system, or storage medium; and should such
claims at times be considered equivalent for § 101 purposes?
[N]othing in the Supreme Court’s precedent, nor in ours, allows a court to go hunting for abstractions by ignoring the concrete, palpable, tangible, and otherwise not abstract invention the patentee actually claims. It is fundamentally improper to paraphrase a claim in overly simplistic generalities in assessing whether the claim falls under the limited “abstract ideas” exception to patent eligibility under 35 USC §101. Patent eligibility must be evaluated based on what the claims recite, not merely on the ideas upon which they are premised.
To read the Court’s order for en banc review, click here; to read a summary of the panel decision and obtain a copy of Judge Linn’s opinion, click here.
Listen to this podcast where I discuss how damages should be assessed in privacy and cybersecurity lawsuits. The Lawyers Weekly Show host J...
The United Nations intellectual property agency (WIPO) is the latest front in the US-China trade war. http://www.theage.com.au/world/sad-am...
The issue of content regulation in China was mentioned in this blog last year . In the last few weeks, this issue has once again pushed into...
Finally, what is called direct registration of domain names is coming to Australia. See https://www.auda.org.au/statement/australias-interne...