Patent Law Practice Center

Unanimous SCOTUS Sides with Monsanto on Seeds

On Monday, May 13, 2013, the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled that a farmer who buys Monsanto’s patented seeds cannot then propagate new seeds for future use without infringing the underlying patent.

The opening paragraph in the Court’s decision, which was delivered by Justice Kagan, succinctly captures the essence of the ruling. Justice Kagan wrote:

Federal Circuit Makes Mess of Software Patents

In what can only fairly be characterized as a patent tragedy, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit now has no official position on the patentability of system claims that objectively recite volumes of tangible structures that clearly satisfy the machine-or-transformation test. Less than 5 years after giving the industry the rigid machine-or-transformation test, which was ultimately struck down by the Supreme Court, five of the ten judges that heard CLS Bank v. Alice Corporation en banc would find that claims that seem to clearly satisfy the machine-or-transformation test are not patent eligible.

The per curiam decision of the Federal Circuit was very brief. It simply stated:

Upon consideration en banc, a majority of the court affirms the district court’s holding that the asserted method and computer-readable media claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. An equally divided court affirms the district court’s holding that the asserted system claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under that statute.

(more…)

A Conversation about Software Patents

On March 25, 2013, I spoke on the record with Eric Gould Bear (left) about software innovations, software patents and the trials and tribulations of litigating software patents long after they were first written.

Bear is an inventor on over 100 patents and patent applications in the software space. He has spent over 25 years working with numerous Fortune 500 corporations with respect to assisting them in the creation of new user experiences. He is also a founder of the design studio MONKEYmedia, which recently launched a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple, and which also has a patent infringement lawsuit pending against Sony, Disney and others. Bear is also a testifying software expert witness.

During our one-hour discussion, which published in three parts on IPWatchdog.com, we discussed a number of interesting topics. What appears below are some of the highlights of our discussion.

(more…)

Algorithm Disclosure: Best Practices in Software Patents

Essentially, means-plus-function claiming allows the drafter to claim the invention based on functionality rather than the more traditional (and preferred) claim technique that describes structure(s) within the body of the claim itself.

A claim term is functional when it recites a feature by what it does rather than by what it is. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the use of such claim language, although it is becoming more and more apparent (if it wasn’t already apparent enough) that the Federal Circuit frowns upon means-plus-function claiming.

(more…)

Patent Drafting: Defining Computer Implemented Processes

The following post was written by Gene Quinn , of IPWatchdog and Practice Center Contributor.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office is radically updating the Patent Bar Examination starting in April 2011.  Since I teach the PLI Patent Bar Review Course that has required John White and I to revise our materials.  One of the new things tested will be the recently released 112 Guidelines, which are full of great information and explanation, particularly relating to computer implemented processes; what many would call software.  Being the “software guy” one of my responsibilities has been to work on the 112 Guidelines and the Bilski Guidelines for the PLI course.  So I thought I would take this opportunity to write, once again, about how to disclose computer implemented inventions to satisfy the disclosure requirements, which are embodied specifically in 35 U.S.C. § 112.

The statutory requirements for computer-implemented inventions are the same as for all inventions.  That means that in order to be patentable the invention must meet the patent eligibility test in 35 U.S.C. § 101, the invention must be new (§ 102), it must be non-obvious (§ 103) and it must be adequately described (§ 112).  Since the United States Supreme Court announced its decision in Bilski v. Kappos, the United States Patent and Trademark Office has continually urged patent examiners to get beyond the § 101 inquiry except in extreme cases.  Prior to the Supreme Court’s Bilski decision many examiners would simply see a computer-implemented method and issue a blanket and rather non-specific rejection asserting that the invention was not patent eligible subject matter under § 101.  The USPTO focus on getting past § 101 and to the meat of the invention means that such rejections are no longer the norm.  It also means that the Patent Office is pushing the real question about whether an patentable invention is presented into the adequate description space pursuant to § 112.  Thus, a thorough and complete description is absolutely essential when your invention relates to a computer-implemented method, whether it is software, an Internet processes or a business method. (more…)