Each time the U.S. Supreme Court has addressed patent eligibility, the law surrounding what can and cannot be patented has become murkier. Most recently, the wake of the Supreme Court’s Alice ruling has led to irreconcilable...more
In 2014's Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l case, Justice Thomas famously wrote, "we need not labor to delimit the precise contours of the 'abstract ideas' category in this case." Instead, he found the claims of patentee Alice...more
For many companies in many industries, patents are an important tool for driving innovation. At the same time, patents limit competition, so that companies must also be wary of their competitors’ patent portfolios. The result...more
We wrote earlier about the Supreme Court’s renewed interest in patent eligibility and seemingly unintended confusion between the patent eligibility requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the remaining patentability requirements...more
Are card games or other games of chance patentable? Does it matter whether the game is played in the physical realm (e.g., using physical cards, dice, etc.) or in the virtual realm on a computer display? A recent decision...more
Financial Services Patent Claims Invalid - On January 20, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in the case captioned Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Services Inc., NYLX, Inc. This case involves patent...more
Design patents protect the ornamental features of utilitarian objects, that is, the uniqueness of aesthetic features, form, or configuration of products. Design patents can be a significant weapon in the intellectual...more
Although the general rule (based on 35 USC section 101) is that anything made by humans is patentable, there are exceptions. Laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. Inventions that fall in...more
In late July, the USPTO issued its July 2015 Update to the 2014 Interim Section 101 Patent Eligibility Guidance (IEG). The July 2015 Update addresses a number of the issues and concerns raised in the public comments to the...more
Earlier this summer, in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the District Court for the Northern District of California granting summary judgment of invalidity of the asserted...more
Recently, I had the privilege of speaking at the annual meeting of the American Society of Pharmacognosy in Colorado. Members of this scientific association are dedicated to identifying and isolating natural products from...more
On July 30, 2015, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office updated its subject matter eligibility guidance ("Eligibility Update"). This update provides recommendations and resources for examiners in addition to those in the...more
The machine-or-transformation test was once the gatekeeper of patent eligibility, but that reign ended in 2010 when the Supreme Court stated in Bilski that it is not the sole test for determining patentability. By 2013 the...more
Patent applicants from the software and business method fields took notice after the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International, et al. (“Alice,” 134 S. Ct. 2347...more
The third time is the charm in Ultramercial v. Hulu: After twice finding that an advertising method patent was directed to patent eligible subject matter, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s third Ultramercial...more
Ever since the 2010 Supreme Court opinion in Bilski v. Kappos was handed down, the debate over the scope of patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been at times stimulating, complex, comical, and frustrating. Now it...more
In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 2014 U.S. Lexis 4303 (June 19, 2014, No. 13-298) the Supreme Court once again addressed what has been termed "business method" patents in the context of determining whether...more
Less than four weeks after the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, the Federal Circuit has used the holding of that case to strike down a patentee's claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101....more
On Friday, the Federal Circuit released its first opinion citing the Supreme Court’s June 2014 decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. This opinion is significant because it shows how the Federal Circuit intends to follow the...more
On June 19, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its much anticipated decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International et al., confirming that computer-implemented inventions, such as computer...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued an important opinion in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International regarding the patent eligibility of basic business methods covered in computer software patents. Writing for the unanimous...more
In a highly-anticipated case that had the potential to drastically change the patent landscape surrounding computer-implemented inventions, in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l the Supreme Court took a measured approach to the...more
This morning, in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, the Supreme affirmed the Federal Circuit's per curiam opinion in CLS Bank v. Alice Corp. in a unanimous opinion by Justice Thomas with a concurring opinion by Justice Sotomayor joined...more
Earlier today, the Supreme Court decided Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank International and unanimously held that Alice’s patent claims were not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they merely called for generic...more
Since the United States Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Bilski v. Kappos, holding that a computer-assisted method of hedging risk in the field of commodities trading was unpatentable under §101 of the Patent Act, courts have...more