Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Regardless of whether a patent practitioner’s clients favor a stricter or more lenient eligibility regime, patent eligibility decisions continue to evolve. Patent practitioners have been seeking updated guidance since 2014’s Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573, U.S. 208 (2014) decision, and we may see some from American Axle & Mfg. v. Neapco Holdings, LLC, 967 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2020). We are still waiting for a response to last year’s invitation from the Supreme Court to the Solicitor General seeking guidance on granting certiorari in American Axle. Some practitioners have wondered why American Axle should be the subject of such long-awaited guidance. Indeed, practitioners filing an amicus brief in Interactive Wearables, LLC v. Polar Electro Oy, stated their preference for an application surrounding an “intuitive technology” over American Axle’s “highly technical subject matter.” Interactive Wearables, LLC v. Polar Electro Oy, et al., No. 21-1281, Brief of the Chicago Patent Attorneys as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner at 4 (U.S. April 21, 2022). However, it can be argued that the level of technicality is indeed what makes it the right case: We need a line drawn for what practitioners expect to be clearer. Hardware inventions are facing patent eligibility challenges that would have seemed more likely in software inventions. Recent court decisions have shown that what once made a hardware invention eligible may no longer fly.
Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.
Blockchain Domains: New Developments for Brand Owners
By John McElwaine
Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.
AI Can Facilitate Innovation, But It Can Also Become a Potent Patent Killer
By Michael K. Friedland
When is an inventor not an inventor? It’s when the inventor isn’t human. So, if a non-human inventor can’t, in the eyes of patent law, be an inventor, what role can the non-human inventor have in the patent system? The answer is straightforward. Even though it can’t create, it can destroy.
Patent Your Trade Secrets In Wake of Noncompete Ban
By Daniel E. Rose
While it may be growing more difficult to protect business information with the FTC’s noncompete ban, patents can provide strong protection over technical innovations, regardless of whether the inventor stays with the company or leaves.
Key Takeaways from the Latest USPTO Guidance on AI
By James DeCarlo
The April Guidance, which supplements prior guidance issued in February, seeks to remind practitioners of existing rules and to educate them on potential risks associated with artificial intelligence tool use, allowing practitioners to mitigate these risks.