Brooks Acordia Patent Attorney Explains Business Method Patents | Law Firm Newswire

Brooks Acordia Patent Attorney Explains Business Method Patents

Los Angeles, CA (Law Firm Newswire) January 31, 2014 - Business method patents have been around for a long time, but they have only recently been issued in large numbers.

“From 1997 to 2007, the number of business method patents issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) increased from 1,000 to 11,000. Most of those patents were in the areas of finance and computer technology,” said Los Angeles patent attorney Jim Dawson.

Some intellectual property experts are skeptical of the appropriateness of patenting methods of business. But for now, they represent important assets for many entities and are patentable under the same standards as other proposals.

However, recent court cases have cast their future in doubt.

In the 2008 case In re Bilski, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the sole test to determine the patentability of a business method is that it must either be tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or it must transform matter into a different state or thing. This requirement is commonly called the “machine-or-transformation test.” The ruling created great concern among technology companies because, if strictly applied, it would cast doubt on many business method patents granted by the USPTO up to that point.

But in 2010, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Bilski v. Kappos that the machine-or-transformation test was not the sole test of patentability for business methods. The Court called the test one “useful and important clue or investigative tool.” However, the court did not offer any further guidance on other valid standards for evaluation.

Today, business method patents continue to face stiff legal challenges. On December 6, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal in CLS Bank v. Alice Corp. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit already dealt a severe blow to Alice, operator of an online financial marketplace, by ruling the company's claims ineligible in a crucial business method patent. Judge Kimberly Moore, dissenting, said the ruling would mean “the death of hundreds of thousands of patents.” Judge Pauline Newman said the case “could do more damage to the patent system” than any other case in history.

“When the Supreme Court rules, we may get better guidance in terms of what qualifications a business method patent must meet,” Dawson added. “Until then, the USPTO offers guidance for would-be inventors, listing as “factors weighing toward eligibility” for business methods: recitation of a machine or transformation; whether the claim is directed toward applying a law of nature; and whether the claim is more than a mere statement of a concept.”

Brooks Acordia IP Law, P.C.
1445 E. Los Angeles Ave. #108
Simi Valley, CA 93065-2827
Phone: (805) 579-2500
Fax: (805) 584-6427

Twitter

Facebook

Google+

  • New Guidance On What Is Patentable by the USPTO
    Since the Alice decision, there has been a lot of confusion about what is patentable – especially for life science and software related patents. At the beginning of 2019, the USPTO has issued new guidelines for determining patetability. These new guidelines set forth that non-patentable subject matter, or “judicial exceptions”, include abstract ideas such as “mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.” Additionally, it also includes “laws of nature and natural phenomena.” It further goes on to say ...
  • Grace period and on sale bar related to “secret” sales
    In a Supreme Court decision which was unanimous and authored by Justice Thomas, the Court reiterated the significance of offering a product for sale and how it affects the patent eligibility of the product. In Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharma USA (Supreme Court 2019) the Court was asked to look at the enacted AIA and whether “secret” sales continue to qualify as prior art under the revised Section 102.  The court examined the provision that “an inventor’s sale of an invention to a ...
  • Trademark and Trade-dress Laws
    Christian Louboutin’s signature red-soled heels are universally known as the ultimate signs of luxury in the shoe fashion world. However, despite their fame, the question arises of whether Louboutin can trademark his red soles as exclusively his own.<br />
    Louboutin has attempted to obtain trademarks in several countries, and the verdicts are varied. In Switzerland, for example, Louboutin was denied trademark protection because the court ruled that the red sole was not of distinctive character. However, Louboutin has successfully obtained trademarks ...

See other news sources publishing this article. BETA | Tags: , , , , ,



Get headlines from Law Firm Newswire sent right to your inbox.

* indicates required