Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In <i>CLS Bank,</i> the Federal Circuit Agrees to Disagree
The intellectual property community hoped and expected that the Federal Circuit's en banc decision in CLS Bank Int'l v. Alice Corp. would provide guidance regarding the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. ' 101. Instead, the Federal Circuit's decision created confusion, identifying three competing tests for assessing patentable subject matter under ' 101.
The Federal Circuit's decision included seven separate opinions spanning 135 pages, but the only precedential portion appears to be the one-page per curiam opinion affirming the district court's holding that the asserted method, computer-readable medium, and system claims are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter. Many of the judges agreed on the ultimate result, with seven out of 10 concluding that the asserted method and computer-readable medium claims were patent-ineligible, and five of those seven judges concluding that the system claims were patent-ineligible. But the Federal Circuit was unable to resolve some of the most important issues the case presented.
For example, the decision failed to provide a framework for determining what is an “abstract idea,” including whether a computer-implemented invention is a patent-ineligible “abstract idea.” The decision also failed to provide guidance regarding whether the type of claim affects patent eligibility under ' 101, including the related question of whether the presence of a computer is sufficient to provide patent eligibility. And the Federal Circuit's identification of three different tests for patentable subject matter raises a new issue for courts to consider: whether the analysis of patent eligibility turns on the entire claim, or only the portion of the claim that goes beyond a mere “abstract idea.”
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.