SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Summer Interns

IP-Watch interns talk about their Geneva experience in summer 2013. 2:42.

Inside Views

Submit ideas to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch!

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

The Politicization Of The US Patent System

The Washington Post story, How patent reform’s fraught politics have left USPTO still without a boss (July 30), is a vivid account of how patent reform has divided the US economy, preempting a possible replacement for David Kappos who stepped down 18 months ago. The division is even bigger than portrayed. Universities have lined up en masse to oppose reform, while main street businesses that merely use technology argue for reform. Reminiscent of the partisan divide that has paralyzed US politics, this struggle crosses party lines and extends well beyond the usual inter-industry debates. Framed in terms of combating patent trolls through technical legal fixes, there lurks a broader economic concern – to what extent ordinary retailers, bank, restaurants, local banks, motels, realtors, and travel agents should bear the burden of defending against patents as a cost of doing business.


Latest Comments
  • “We want everybody to agree on the science telling... »
  • So this is how we mankind will become extinct? No ... »

  • For IPW Subscribers

    A directory of IP delegates in Geneva. Read more>

    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >


    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >

    US Perspectives
    Once More, US Supreme Court Will Review Software Patents

    Published on 20 December 2013 @ 10:07 pm

    By for Intellectual Property Watch

    When it comes to software-related inventions, US patent law is a confused mess. So it was no surprise that, in early December, the United States Supreme Court announced it would weigh in on the matter. The court granted certiorari in Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank in order to decide when software-related inventions are patentable subject matter. But given the complicated technology and the high court’s confusing precedents in this area, many experts fear that the ruling in Alice will bring little clarity to this area of the law.

    There is an increasing consensus in the United States that something needs to be done about software patents. There are simply too many software-related patents, many of dubious quality, according to a growing chorus of academics, business executives, advocacy groups, legislators, and patent attorneys. Instead of encouraging innovation, these patents have become a worrisome drag on the nation’s economy and its patent system, critics assert.

    There is, however, little consensus about how to solve this problem. Some have called for tougher application of existing legal standards. They want the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to review applications for these patents more carefully. They want the courts and the USPTO to throw out many existing software patents whose claims are vague, overbroad, or anticipated by prior art.

    Other critics say the problem requires a more radical remedy. They have called for the complete elimination of software patents, asserting that software-related inventions should not be considered patentable subject matter.

    That would produce in a huge change in US law. The USPTO has been granting patents on software-related inventions since the late 1960s. The agency has, to date, issued tens of thousands of such patents. They comprised almost 20 percent of all patents the USPTO issued in 2011, according to Federal Circuit Judge Kimberly A. Moore.

    All these patents are now under a legal cloud, because the law in this area has become so confused. No one can say for certain whether a software-related invention is patentable subject matter. “No one knows what the legal standard is,” said Prof. Lee A. Hollaar of the University of Utah’s School of Computing.

    State of Confusion

    Congress created the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals to prevent this type of confusion. Often referred to as the nation’s “patent court,” the Federal Circuit was intended to be a court possessing special expertise in patent law and providing a uniform patent law for the nation.

    On this issue, however, the Federal Circuit has added to the confusion. In its May 2013 decision, CLS Bank v. Alice Corp., the en banc court of 10 judges issued six different and often contradictory views on whether and when software-related inventions are patentable subject matter. That decision,, is the one that will be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

    The patentee in that case, Alice Corp., obtained US patents covering an electronic escrow service that ensures both sides in online financial transactions satisfy their obligations. Basically, a deal is consummated only if the buyer first puts into electronic escrow the required payment and the seller puts into electronic escrow the securities to be sold. Once that occurs, the third party holding the escrowed items closes the transaction and settles the obligations between the buyer and seller.

    Alice sued CLS for infringing these patents. CLS asserted the patents were invalid because they did not cover patent-eligible subject matter. The district court agreed with CLS and struck down the patents.

    In May, a riven Federal Circuit upheld the district court decision. Seven judges ruled that Alice’s claimed escrow method was not patent-eligible because it was just an abstract idea.

    Also patent-ineligible, these same judges found, was Alice’s claimed manufactured item – a computer-readable medium (such as a computer disk) containing software directing a computer to carry out Alice’s specified process. Because the physical item was claimed in sweeping terms and only the method contained in the item was specified, the judges found this to be a method claim in disguise – and this method was too abstract to be patent eligible.

    Alice’s patents also claimed a machine, consisting of a computerized system configured to implement Alice’s claimed escrow process. Five Federal Circuit judges voted to strike down these claims because the machine was specifically described only in terms of the method to be implemented. “The system claims are … akin to stating the abstract idea of third-party intermediation and adding the words: ‘apply it’ on a computer.” Because the claimed method was too abstract to be patent-eligible, the claimed machine was also not patentable subject matter.

    However, the Federal Circuit split evenly, five to five, on whether Alice’s claimed machine was patent-eligible. Because a majority did not vote to overrule the district court, Federal Circuit maintained the lower court ruling that struck down the patent on that machine.

    This Federal Circuit decision has created widespread confusion among businesses and patent experts. “I don’t think anyone right now knows what the law is,” said Michael K. Mutter, a patent attorney in the Virginia law firm of Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch. “You have a 50-50 divided Federal Circuit producing diametrically opposed opinions. I’ve been doing this for 34 years, and I’ve never seen anything like this before.”

    “It is a mess,” said Jake M. Holdreith, a patent litigator in the Minneapolis office of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi. “It is hard to determine how a software-related invention will be treated in any given court.”

    Supreme Inconsistency

    The Supreme Court has addressed this issue three times before. The first time was in 1972. The court declared in Gottschalk v. Benson that the computer-implemented method claims at issue were too abstract to be patent-eligible subject matter. However, the court left open the possibility that other software might be patent-eligible.

    In 1978, the Supreme Court again struck down a software patent. The court found in Parker v. Flook that the only novel feature in the claimed computer-implemented method was a mathematical formula. Such a formula was merely an abstract idea that was not patent-eligible, the court declared.

    In 1981, the court finally found a computer-implemented process to be patent-eligible. The court in Diamond v. Diehr upheld the patent on a computer-implemented process for curing rubber, finding it was not merely an abstract idea because the mathematical equation used in the software was just part of a larger specified process for transforming rubber. Rather than claiming exclusive rights to the equation, the patentee claimed only the exclusive right to “the use of that equation in conjunction with all of the other steps in their claimed process,” the court stated.

    Unfortunately, many lower courts and patent experts have had trouble determining why the Supreme Court treated the invention in Diehr differently than the inventions in Benson and Flook. The result has been massive confusion about the patent-eligibility of software-related inventions.

    “There is no clear distinction between this case [Diehr] and the prior two cases,” Hollaar said. “Practically everyone thinks this is a mess.”

    Perhaps in Alice, the Supreme Court will finally lay out clear guidelines on when software-related inventions are patent-eligible subject matter. Many observers, however, are not optimistic.

    “These are difficult and complex technologies that pose difficult and complex questions,” Holdreith said. Trying to provide simple answers, he added, would be “dangerous.”

    The Supreme Court has not yet scheduled the case for oral argument.  Most experts anticipate that the court will hear oral arguments on Alice in the spring and issue its decision before its term ends in late June.

    Steven Seidenberg is a freelance reporter and attorney who has been covering intellectual property developments in the US for more than 15 years. He is based in the greater New York City area and may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. R Saha says:

      Historically patents have always been related to something physical which can be reworked. Each invention would have started as an abstract idea and would have remained an idea till the invention was actually materialized. A software is abstract in nature which does not fit into the concept of a physical identity. Without a proper definition of the corresponding hardware patenting of abstraction which the software represents looks quite illogical. It is very often seen in granted patents related to software that the inventive step and novelty are not explicitly defined or brought out. For example, how many times do you see patents quantitatively defining saving in memory or time by utilizing the software. The interpretation is left to the patent examiner. Since the element of abstraction is very high, determining novelty and inventiveness of a new software related invention becomes difficult and complex. One confusion leads to the next and it goes on! Who will compensate people who were made to pay to patent holders for infringement of not-correctly issued patents. Each country should carefully lay down its laws carefully in this regard.

    2. In US, 2014 Promises Bad News For Patent Trolls And Trademark Owners | Intellectual Property Watch says:

      […] /divhr noshade width="80%" size="1" color="#dbe2e3" align="center"/divdiv id="lefttext"div class="leftitem"a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/12/12/the-eu-thailand-fta-what-fate-for-access-to-medicines/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link to "The EU-Thailand FTA: What Fate For Access To Medicines?">The EU-Thailand FTA: What Fate For Access To Medicines?Read More Inside Views > People NewsOnce More, US Supreme Court Will Review Software Patents […]

    3. Once More, US Supreme Court Will Review Software Patents ... | COPY SOFT says:

      […] Continued here: Once More, US Supreme Court Will Review Software Patents … […]


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

     

     
    Your IP address is 54.211.1.204