On June 16, I will be taking part in an ABA-hosted Webinar on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Post-Alice Corp. Our 1.5 hour panel includes myself, Charles Bieneman, Robert Sachs and Alexis Liistro as moderator. Interesting mix of folks and our focus will be on patent practice.
Register here: http://shop.americanbar.org/ebus/ABAEventsCalendar/EventDetails.aspx?productId=185913244
From the brochure:
There have been many articles forecasting the fall of e-commerce patents after Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. These predictions have been supported recently by the high number of e-commerce patents being held invalid by United States Courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. However, this panel does not believe that Alice sounds the death knell for e-commerce patents.
In addition to discussing Alice, faculty will also review other guidelines, such as those issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office and use real-world examples to illustrate the differences between an unenforceable and enforceable e-commerce patent. After attending this program, participants should feel confident in preparing effective and valid e-commerce patents.
These predictions have been supported recently by the high number of e-commerce patents being held invalid by United States Courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Based on what I’ve learned on other threads, this conclusion fails to take into account a “proper” normalization. Once you normalize this “high number” of invalidated patents by the total number of patents in force, you must conclude that Alice is of trivial importance.
N’est-ce pas?
What an Arse.
lol.
Heh. I see what you did, there. Wicked funny, DanH. =)
However, this panel does not believe that Alice sounds the death knell for e-commerce patents.
I suppose one’s belief would depends on exactly what falls under the rubric of an “e-commerce patent”.
Bieneman’s blog is here: link to swipreport.com . It’s a valuable source of information.
Come to think of it, if Bieneman put an ad somewhere on the blog he could then surely describe the website in a novel manner that would qualify it as “e-commerce”. Perhaps Bob Sachs could help him with the wordsmithing. And then they could assert the resultant patent and watch it go up in flames. And then Dennis could blog about it.
the differences between an unenforceable and enforceable e-commerce patent
Pretty sure the most important difference is who you decide to sue.
MM, true that. But do you really believe that a conference with that title has anything to do with improving computer systems as opposed to improving business methods?
These guys are truly delusional. Anybody that would willingly participate in a conversation designed to give hope to the mass of e-commerce patent attorneys who are soon to be unemployed must be smoking something.
They lost me at: “faculty will also review other guidelines, such as those issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office”
Straw grasping at its finest.
Why? The Patent Office’s guidelines do not have the force of law, often are incorrect, and often conflict with the current caselaw.
“Why? The Patent Office’s guidelines do not have the force of law, often are incorrect, and often conflict with the current caselaw.”
Agreed.
I’m not sure to whom or from what direction you are asking why… But I think we are on the same page here given your comment.
Ned: These guys are truly delusional. Anybody that would willingly participate in a conversation designed to give hope to the mass of e-commerce patent attorneys who are soon to be unemployed must be smoking something.
Not delusional. There is clearly a demand for such webinars. They are simply satisfying the demand.
Genghis, an ambitious person might want to advertise on that webinar and offer a retraining/relocation program for e-commerce patent attorneys who can read the writing on the walls. Perhaps these folks could become bio, pharma or chemical patent attorneys, err ….. never mind.
Still pushing business method patents are we?
Last I checked 3, the new 4, was still not 5. And that’s not even getting into the Statutory/common law – O’Malley discussion that is one giant perpetual “Oops” for you Ned.
Comments are closed.