June July 2017 Ideas on IP Law Newsletter
Just desserts?
Why a computerized menu patent was found ineligible
This article talks about why merely appending a pre-existing practice or technology to patent-ineligible claims doesn’t render them patent-eligible. Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc. involved patents for a computerized restaurant menu system that were challenged for adding familiar computer components to well-known business practices. A sidebar explains what a “Covered Business Method” patent is.
Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., No. 2015-1703, -1704, Nov. 29, 2016 (Fed. Cir.)
Alice Corp Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, No. 13–298, June 19, 2014 (U.S.)
Business method patent surprisingly survives judicial scrutiny
A recent Federal Circuit Court ruling on business method patents for software may provide new hope for patent holders. This article explains why modifications to the functioning of a known system typically produce patent-ineligible inventions — and why the patented method and system under review in this case were treated differently.
Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 2016-1616, Jan. 18, 2017 (Fed. Cir.)
Application accepted
Court says marks can cover certain software
Does a company that provides software perform a service that supports a service mark? In today’s technology-driven markets, this question is raised with increased frequency. The appeals court decision in In re JobDiva, Inc. provides some guidance.
In re JobDiva, Inc., No. 2015-1960, Dec. 12, 2016 (Fed. Cir.)
Why novelty doesn’t make abstract ideas any less abstract
The “Alice test” is a two-step framework for identifying patents that cover nothing more than abstract ideas — and are therefore not patent-eligible. This article describes a Federal Circuit case, Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., where the patent holder failed the test. In its decision, the court clarified that a patent claim for a novel abstract idea doesn’t change the fact that the idea is abstract.
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., No. 2016-1599, Oct. 17, 2016 (Fed. Cir.)
