Her order in Versata Software, Inc. v. Callidus Software, Inc. is here. It is quite interesting as it permits the patentee to designate a person to coordinate parallel patent proceedings (litigation and post-grant, e.g.), but subject to a bar. It also has a one-year bar, not two, which in my view (especially in software field) is closer to the appropriate length, though she measures it from end of litigation, which seems too long for me.
This could be a useful model.
So I’m not a software patent expert by any means, but I think limiting the bar to source code is inadequate. Many times, I’ve seen claims to various software applications that simply use highly-generalized functional language. I would think that non-source code documents (carved out in footnote 3) would provide enough information to amend the claims in a manner that is beneficial to the patentee’s infringement (and validity) case.
Comments are closed.