Building on Abstract Ideas: Alice v CLS Bank

By Evan Jensen

In its much-anticipated Alice v CLS Bank decision the Supreme Court held that Alice’s software patent was patent-ineligible subject matter under §101. But in its decision the Supreme Court seems to have blended a §101 analysis with a §103 analysis. The Court seems to infer that well-known ideas, such as methods that are fundamental to modern economy, are abstract and therefore patent-ineligible under §101.

There is no debate that abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter. No one may claim exclusive rights to the idea of addition, or of binary-decimal conversion, or any other generic abstract mathematical or conceptual idea. To allow a patent on an abstract idea would preempt everyone else from using that idea, greatly discouraging innovation, which is contrary to the primary goals of the patent system. The issue is which software claims, or whether software claims in general, are made patent-ineligible by the Alice decision.

Continue reading Building on Abstract Ideas: Alice v CLS Bank

The Difficulties Dealing with Nanotechnology in the World of Patentable Technologies

By Afshein “Ash” Ghezelbash

Among the emerging technologies that affect our daily functions, nanotechnology is at the forefront of making a huge impact in our society. Breakthroughs in nanotechnology create new materials that are more robust, lighter and thinner than existing ones, which may be of great interest in the fields of aircraft and space technology, construction, clothing, and biotechnologies. But what is nanotechnology?

Nanotechnology is the creation of machines that operate at a miniscule scale, the ‘nanoscale,’ approximately between 1 and 100 nanometers, or 1 to 100 billionths of a meter. Nanotechnology is applied to a variety of different products. What the future holds is limitless. Initially nanotechnology was used for medical purposes to prevent the growth of bacteria, germs, and fungi especially on surgical tools. Additionally, nanotechnology could potentially hold the key to future heart attack and cancer treatment by repairing or reconstructing new tissues in the human body.

Continue reading The Difficulties Dealing with Nanotechnology in the World of Patentable Technologies

Revolutionizing Manufacturing; the Law and 3D Printing

By Afshein “Ash” Ghezelbash

The revolution in manufacturing is here. Undoubtedly, 3D printing is fast, cheap, and will revolutionize the way we manufacture objects. In essence, 3D printing is a process in which raw material is layered into three-dimensional shapes. Common applications include toys, footwear, jewelry, kitchenware, architecture, engineering and construction, automotive, aerospace, dental and medical devices. Even human organs today are being constructed from scratch using 3D printers. But this is just the beginning of how 3D printing can change the way we conduct business. The technology is available, but companies and organizations around the world have yet to discover the full potential of 3D printing. With that said, the question for future users of 3D printing remains the same: who can regulate what should and should not be printed?

Continue reading Revolutionizing Manufacturing; the Law and 3D Printing

China and its Move to Become an IP Powerhouse

By Afshein “Ash” Ghezelbash

Over the past few years, China’s patent and copyright frameworks are starting to change. Historically, China does not have a strong reputation among other innovative nations with regard to intellectual property (IP) rights. But recently, China’s approach towards IP rights is seeing a transformation. China is projected to rank among the top three countries in the world in terms of annual patents for inventions. Most notably, China has almost doubled the amount of patent applications overseas, many of which are to be examined by the United States Patent and Trademark Offices (USPTO). The Chinese government has made substantial changes in enforcing patent laws in the last decade. Because of these improvements, and because businesses are always seeking out to get the best protection for their intellectual property, U.S. companies are now seeking protection on their patents in China through China’s State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO).

Continue reading China and its Move to Become an IP Powerhouse

The Wild West of gTLDs and Trademarks

By Evan Jensen

Generic top-level domains (gTLDs) are a new and soon-to-be-huge feature of the internet. New websites using a wide variety of newly created domain names will soon be springing up like weeds. Owners of brands and trademarks need to be aware of the threats, and of their options and the tools that are available to protect their intellectual property on the web.

This huge expansion of internet real estate also brings a new wave of speculators and cybersquatters. New gTLDs open up a world of possibilities for speculators and cybersquatters to claim popular words and marks for their own profit. Trademark holders need to be proactive in order to protect their marks from being exploited by vultures on the web by taking advantage of ICANN’s new trademark protections, including legal rights objections to gTLD’s and the newly-created Trademark Clearinghouse.

Continue reading The Wild West of gTLDs and Trademarks

Generic Top-Level Domains: The Gold Rush is On

By Evan Jensen

The biggest gold rush since the creation of the internet is in full swing. The creation of new top-level domains is the largest expansion of the internet ever, opening up a new world of opportunity to stake a claim to newly available names that will be immensely valuable in the future. The land grab for virtual real estate is back, and this time it is millions of times larger.

On June 20, 2011, ICANN’s board decided to remove nearly all the restrictions on generic top-level domains (gTLDs).[1] This decision would eventually lead to the creation of ICANN’s New Generic Top Level Domain program to auction off gTLDs. The program allows companies and institutions to purchase any desired string of characters to act as a top-level domain, and to sell domain names beneath that gTLD to anyone who wants one.

Continue reading Generic Top-Level Domains: The Gold Rush is On

Patent and Trademark Office Publishes Final Rules for Derivation Proceedings

By Charles Pierce

On September 10, The Patent and Trademark Office published finals rules designed to ensure that a person applying for a patent is the true inventor through a new trial proceeding, the derivation proceeding.  An applicant who is not first to file (the petitioner) will be able to petition for a derivation proceeding and attempt to show that  another applicant’s (the respondent) claimed invention was derived from the petitioner’s invention.  Derivation proceedings will take place before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

The petition must show by substantial evidence that the petitioner’s application has at least one claim which is the same or substantially similar to the respondent’s claimed invention and demonstrate that the respondent’s claimed invention was derived from the petitioner’s invention.  The petitioner must also show, for each of his claims, why the respondent’s claimed invention is substantially similar, and identify how the claim should be construed.[1]  Such a petition must be filed within one year of the publication of the petitioner’s relevant claims.[2]

These new rules will be codified in 37 C.F.R. Part 42, Subpart E, and will take effect on March 16, 2013.  The full text of the rules along with the PTO’s responses to comments may be found at http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/Derivation_Proceedings.pdf or 77 Fed. Reg. 56067 (Sept. 11, 2012).

[1] Changes to Implement Derivation Proceedings, 77 Fed. Reg. 56067, 56091 (Sept. 11, 2012) (to be codified at 47 C.F.R. Part 42).
[2] Id.