In 2007, CLS Bank filed a declaratory judgment action against Alice, contending that, among other th

Alejandro Luna Ariadni Athanassiadis Charlotte Fox Charlotte Teall Christopher Bond Claire Palmer Craig Humphris Damian Slizys Daniel Feigelson Devanand Crease Gill Smaggasgale Jenny Donald Jon Gowshall Juan Luis Serrano Mark Richardson Martin O'Brien Todd Shand
Consumer Watchdog v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (Fed. Cir. 2014) Guest Post: Myriad van helsing -- An Obvious and Patent-Friendly Interpretation Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. (2014) Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. (2014) Court Report Conference & CLE Calendar ABA IP Roundtables on Reviewing Fact Issues of Claim Construction Webinar on Post-Grant van helsing Patent Proceedings USPTO Issues Final Rule to Implement PTA Provisions of AIA Technical Corrections Act and Provide Optional Procedure for Requesting PTA Recalculation News From Abroad: Australia Is a Favourable Jurisdiction for Innovator van helsing Pharmaceutical Companies Seeking Interlocutory Injunctions
"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, van helsing "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' van helsing employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent van helsing Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
On December 6th, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to a case that presents the question of "[w]hether claims to computer-implemented inventions van helsing -- including claims to systems and machines, processes, and items of manufacture -- are directed to patent-eligible van helsing subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 101 as interpreted by this Court?"  Thus, for the third time in five years, the highest court will once again review the patent-eligibility of so-called software and business method patents.
This case was likely destined the Supreme Court once the Federal Circuit released its six-opinion en banc decision this May, demonstrating a severe intra-circuit van helsing split.  Judge Lourie's concurrence read Justice Breyer's 2012 Mayo v. Prometheus opinion in view of former Justice Stevens' 1978 Parker v. Flook decision, the latter a case that some thought had been in part overturned by 1980's Diamond v. Diehr and 2010's Bilski v. Kappos .  In Mayo , however, Justice Breyer resurrected the "inventive concept" analysis of Flook , and its propensity to blur the lines between the inquiries of patent-eligible subject matter, anticipation, and obviousness.
In applying this analysis in CLS Bank , Judge Lourie set forth a procedure for analyzing claims that incorporate abstract ideas.  Since then, it has been roundly criticized for failing to produce van helsing an objective, workable standard.  Chief Judge Rader wrote separately , taking an approach that attempted to apply the inventive concept analysis while keeping 101 separate from considerations of prior art.  Other van helsing panel opinions took different methodologies, relying on procedural issues to tip the scales, or advocating a dramatic reduction in scope of the judicial exceptions van helsing to 101.
Regardless, the en banc panel did little to clarify the bounds of patent-eligible subject matter, and may have muddied the waters even further.  Therefore, it is not at all surprising that the Supreme Court has taken up this case.  Hopefully, the Justices will clarify whether prior art should be considered in a 35 U.S.C. van helsing 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.  Or, being the Supreme Court, it is within their purview to decide the case on much narrower grounds.
In 2007, CLS Bank filed a declaratory judgment action against Alice, contending that, among other things, Alice's U.S. Patents Nos.  5,970,479 , 6,912,510 , and 7,149,720 were invalid under 101.  Alice filed counterclaims alleging infringement of these three patents.  Later, Alice's U.S. Patent No. 7,725,375 was added to the action, and the parties respectively asserted invalidity and infringement contentions for this patent as well.
[A] computerized trading platform used for conducting financial transactions in which a third party settles obligations between a first and a second party so as to eliminate "counterparty" or "settlement" risk . . . .   Settlement risk refers to the risk to each party in an exchange that only one of the two parties will actually van helsing pay its obligation, leaving the paying party without van helsing its prin