E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

  • Law Blogs

Become a Fan

« Court Report | Main | Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l: CLS Bank's Supreme Court Brief »

March 09, 2014

Comments

"Hopefully, the Justices will clarify whether prior art should be considered in a 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis, whether such an analysis should be applied to claims as a whole or to claim elements on a piecemeal basis, and whether recitation of general-purpose computer hardware (either as a claim element or as the statutory type of the claim) makes a claim any less abstract."

Michael,

A very faint hope. Our Judicial Mount Olympus has created this muddle and as you correctly observe "this disarray stems from the Supreme Court's own 2012 Mayo ruling." The Ivory Leaguers in this Ivory Tower need to be told bluntly that they've created this mess, and so they need to fix it/clean it up. Again, a very faint hope that they will do anything other than to make this situation worse.

I think I agree. In my mind, the worst case is not that the SCOTUS ruling is so restrictive it makes getting software patents virtually impossible. If that were to happen, I suspect Congress could be persuaded to amend 101 to explicitly permit at least some software patents.

The worst case would be another Mayo-like ruling that provides a test so vague and subjective that it could be used to the same effect, and has us all dealing with trying to apply it in practice for the next few years.

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31