"The claimed invention's efficiency gain from the use of multiple computers is no more than [the] concededly abstract idea. Columbia's claims did not claim a new method of virus screening or improve upon existing methods, and did not improve or change the way a computer functions, and therefore were directed to an abstract idea."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court judgment finding Columbia University's patents for virus and malware protection software patent-eligible. The court determined at Alice step one that Columbia's claims were directed to abstract ideas without claiming new virus screening methods or improving how computers function. Norton software was initially found to infringe four claims, resulting in $185.11 million in damages and enhanced penalties. The appellate court also reversed a contempt order against Norton's counsel. The decision emphasizes that merely using multiple computers to perform an abstract idea does not create patent eligibility, as the efficiency gains remain tied to the underlying abstract concept rather than representing genuine technical innovation.
Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]