Apple v. Samsung
The Apple v. Samsung patent case restarted in Federal Court of Australia today. See Sydney Morning Herald
U.S. Federal Circuit Responds to Supreme Court on Patent Eligibility
Reversing a summary judgment of patent
ineligibility under 35 U.S.C.§101, the Federal Circuit in a 2-1 decision
responded to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in
Prometheus v. Mayo with the caution that patent eligibility
must be decided by examining claims for specific, concrete applications
of the ideas behind an invention.
CLS Bank v. Alice Corp., Fed. Cir., No. 11-1301, 9 July 2012. Alice Corporation Pty Ltd is an Australian corporation.
According to the Court, 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, that claim must not be deemed for that reason to be inadequate under Section 101.
Judge Prost dissented, writing that the majority failed to follow the Supreme Court’s Prometheus ruling by not inquiring whether the claims include an “inventive concept” and by devising its own patentable subject matter test.
The challenged patents in this case are
directed to a computerized trading platform for exchanging obligations
in which a trusted third party settles obligations between a first and
second party so as to eliminate “settlement risk.”
The district court granted a summary judgment motion that the claims
were not patent eligible because they are directed to an abstract idea.
On appeal the Federal Circuit reversed, concluding that the system,
method, and media claims are directed to practical
applications of an invention falling within the categories of patent
eligible subject matter defined by Section 101.
The “abstract ideas” test for patent eligibility has become a serious problem because of its “abstractness,” Judge Linn observed. He noted that several Supreme Court decisions have discussed the concept of “preemption” to elucidate the “abstract idea” exception to patent eligibility.
However, he added that Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 188 (1981), addressed claims containing a mathematical equation, and held that they only foreclosed the general use of the equation in conjunction with all of the other steps in the claimed process. Thus, the essential concern, according to the Court, is not preemption per se, but the extent to which preemption results in the foreclosure of innovation.
With respect to implementing inventions in
computer hardware or software, the court stated that the “mere
implementation” on a computer of an otherwise ineligible abstract idea
will not render the invention patent eligible, citing
Fort Props. Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC, 671 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
However, Judge Linn wrote that a machine limitation can render a method patent eligible where the machine imposes a meaningful limit on the scope of the claim and where it plays a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, citing SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A machine is insufficient, he added, if it functions solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e., through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations. A claim that is drawn to a specific way of doing something with a computer is likely to be patent eligible, Judge Linn explained, whereas a claim to nothing more than the idea of doing that thing on a computer may not. He added the following:
To read the Court’s opinion and the dissenting opinion, click here.
According to the Court, 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, that claim must not be deemed for that reason to be inadequate under Section 101.
Judge Prost dissented, writing that the majority failed to follow the Supreme Court’s Prometheus ruling by not inquiring whether the claims include an “inventive concept” and by devising its own patentable subject matter test.
The “abstract ideas” test for patent eligibility has become a serious problem because of its “abstractness,” Judge Linn observed. He noted that several Supreme Court decisions have discussed the concept of “preemption” to elucidate the “abstract idea” exception to patent eligibility.
However, he added that Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 188 (1981), addressed claims containing a mathematical equation, and held that they only foreclosed the general use of the equation in conjunction with all of the other steps in the claimed process. Thus, the essential concern, according to the Court, is not preemption per se, but the extent to which preemption results in the foreclosure of innovation.
However, Judge Linn wrote that a machine limitation can render a method patent eligible where the machine imposes a meaningful limit on the scope of the claim and where it plays a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, citing SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A machine is insufficient, he added, if it functions solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e., through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations. A claim that is drawn to a specific way of doing something with a computer is likely to be patent eligible, Judge Linn explained, whereas a claim to nothing more than the idea of doing that thing on a computer may not. He added the following:
While the use of a machine in these limitations is less substantial or limiting than the industrial uses examined in
Diehr (curing rubber) or Alappat (a rasterizer), the
presence of these limitations prevents us from finding it manifestly
evident that the claims are patent ineligible under § 101. … In such
circumstances, we must leave the question of validity
to the other provisions of Title 35.
New gTLDs by Australian Companies
Here is my list of new gTLDs applied for by Australian companies, Universities and governments. There were a number of Victorian Universities who applied, plus the NSW Government and the Victorian Government. Commonwealth Bank made three applications, as did iSelect. A number will be contested (as marked in bold) below.
Amazon made over 70 applications for words in English, and a bunch more in non-Roman text. Google made about 100 applications, under the name Charleston Road Registry Inc.. Facebook did not make any applications.
- AFL
- AMP
- ANZ
- AUSPOST
- BEST
- BOND
- BOOK
- CANCERRESEARCH
- CBA
- CEO
- COMMBANK
- NETBANK
- COURSES
- FILM
- GLOBALX
- IINET
- KRED
- LATROBE
- COMPARE
- SELECT
- ISELECT
- CPA
- MELBOURNE
- MONASH
- NAB
- UBANK
- PHYSIO
- RMIT
- SALON
- SBS
- TAB
- TENNIS
- SEEK
- SELECT
- SEVEN
- STUDY
- SYDNEY
- WEBJET
- WOODSIDE
- YELLOWPAGES
There are a number of multiple applications for the one gTLD, such as ART, AUCTION, BOOK, BET, BABY, HOTEL, HOT, GROUP, GREEN, GAME, CLOUD, CLUB, AUDIO, AUTO, SECURITY, FREE, RIP, MOBILE, MUSIC, NEWS, NOW, ONLINE, PIZZA, PLAY, POKER, PROPERTY, RACING, RADIO, RESTAURANT, RUGBY, SALE, SCHOOL, SEARCH, SHOP, SITE, VIP and SUCKS. There was one PORN application and two SEX applications (and one SEXY application).
There were two applications from New Zealand, KIWI and RIP.
There were two applications from New Zealand, KIWI and RIP.
Tomorrow is gTLD Reveal Day
It is anticipated that 1,900 applications have been made for new gTLDs. Information will be posted here tomorrow.
See also ICANN and here and WIPO LRO page.
Here's $10 off at Shoebuy.com
Save on shoes, accessories, handbags and apparel at Shoebuy.com. We've got something for everyone and for a limited time, you can save $10 on that special something. Valid on purchase of $50 or more.
Kim Dotcom on the offensive
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10809796
Papers state the FBI allegations "turn a blind eye to laws ... that provide a safe harbour" for businesses which work to remove any material which infringes copyright. It stated there was no law which allowed cloud storage companies to face criminal charges over the actions of users.
Papers state the FBI allegations "turn a blind eye to laws ... that provide a safe harbour" for businesses which work to remove any material which infringes copyright. It stated there was no law which allowed cloud storage companies to face criminal charges over the actions of users.
Does MegaUpload have a DMCA defence?
Google Posts Data as to copyright takedown notices
Google has decided to share its insights on copyright abuse amid a loudening outcry for a crackdown against online piracy that media companies have claimed is collectively costing them billions of dollars each year. The backlash inspired a piece of get-tougher legislation SOPA, that had the backing of most major music and move studios. The proposal caused dismay among major internet companies who feared the law would stifle free speech and innovation. The bill was abandoned four months ago after fierce high-tech opposition that included a one-day blackout of popular websites such as Wikipedia and an online petition drive spearheaded by Google.
See Google Data and SMH article
See Google Data and SMH article
Privacy Inquiries re Google
From The New York Times:
Google Privacy Inquiries Get Little Cooperation All sorts of private Internet communications were casually scooped up as Google Street View cars photographed the world’s streets. http://nyti.ms/Kx4aE2
Wrap up - current issues
John will be travelling interstate on Monday, so Carly will be taking his place for the last lecture.
This lecture will focus on current issues, using Facebook as a marketing case study. Have a look at the following articles to start with:
IPO articles and here
marketing - 10 examples
marketing tips
facebook marketing bible
What are the risks of using social media as a marketing tool?
This lecture will focus on current issues, using Facebook as a marketing case study. Have a look at the following articles to start with:
IPO articles and here
marketing - 10 examples
marketing tips
facebook marketing bible
What are the risks of using social media as a marketing tool?
Online contracting, creating websites
e-commerce
Establishing and operating websites
How is contracting online different to other transactions?
What special regulations are there / should there be to address these differences?
Consider:
- UN Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts (CUEIC)
- Electronic transactions legislation - Commonwealth, Queensland
- UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce
Ensuring enforceability of online contracts
Consider the differences between shrink wrap, click wrap and browse wrap agreements.
Where do website terms of use fit it? Consider some examples and the similarities / differences between them.
What is the impact of the unfair contracts legislation?
Establishing and operating websites
What do you need to be aware of (having regard to previous lectures)?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)