"For those in the patent law world who may have been hiding under a rock, we have been flooded recently with lower court rulings on patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 after Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. Like a tsunami, these lower court rulings are uniformly sweeping away any patent in its wake as being directed to merely an "abstract idea" that doesn't provide "something more.""
"Briefly, the two-part Alice test says: (1) "determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts"; and (2) "search for the 'inventive concept' - i.e., "an element or combination of elements that is "sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself." In every court case I've read so far,"
Since Alice v. CLS Bank, lower courts have issued a flood of rulings invalidating patents under 35 U.S.C. §101. The two-part Alice test, derived substantially from Mayo, requires identifying whether claims are directed to patent-ineligible concepts and then searching for an inventive concept that ensures the claim amounts to significantly more. Many lower courts have applied that test restrictively and dogmatically to systems and methods, particularly business-method patents, frequently finding them abstract and lacking the required inventive concept. A rare PTAB decision, U.S. Bancorp. v. Solutran, Inc., upheld such claims, indicating some variance in outcomes.
Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]