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.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

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

Contact the Docs


  • "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.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« Court Report | Main | King Drug Co. of Florence, Inc. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. (3rd Cir. 2015) »

June 29, 2015


Thanks Eddie and Mike for the great writeup.

A hypothetical: if Planet Blue had added "non-obvious software steps" (definition below) to the claim, then do you think the court would have found the claim to be patent eligible?

By "non-obvious software step(s)" I mean step(s) that (1) include operations and/or structures that are specific to software, e.g., "push an element onto a stack," and (2) are not obvious when one implements a well-known "abstract idea" (e.g., lip synchronization) in software.

Possibly, though the issue here seems to be that the least obvious software step was vaguely defined. This is a tortured analysis at best, but we know from Ultramercial and other cases claims can be novel and non-obvious but still abstract.

Thanks Mike.

The comments to this entry are closed.

February 2024

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