In This Presentation:

- PATENT ELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER: LIFE IN SOFTWARE/IT AFTER ALICE CORPORATION V. CLS BANK (AND OTHER RECENT 101 DECISIONS)

- A Brief History with respect to Software and Biz Methods

- USPTO’s (Over)Reaction to Alice

- Responding to 101 Rejections by (Re)Applying the Mayo Framework – Part I

- Responding to 101 Rejections by (Re)Applying the Mayo Framework – Part II

- PATENT ELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER LIFE IN BIOTECH AFTER MAYO V. PROMETHEUS AND MYRIAD (AND OTHER RECENT 101 DECISIONS)

- 101 – Draft PTO Guidelines

- Practice Points – Biotech Prosecution

- Quotes from Myriad II— Oral Hearing

- DISTRIBUTED INFRINGEMENT: LIFE AFTER LIMELIGHT V. AKAMAI

- Practice Points – Software/IT Prosecution

- Practice Points – Biotech Prosecution

- INDEFINITENESS LIFE AFTER NAUTILUS, INC. V. BIOSIG INSTRUMENTS

- Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments

- Excerpt from Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments:

•“Old” Fed. Cir. (high) standard: claim satisfies §112 if “amenable to construction” and not “insolubly ambiguous”

•After Nautilus: A patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art at the time the patent was filed about the scope of the invention...