The Federal Circuit has greatly reduced the $1.5 Billion award to Carnegie Mellon University — leaving a still healthy $278 million to be paid by chip manufacturer Marvell Technology (plus interest) with the potential of additional receipts from a new trial on whether foreign sales are actually US sales. [Read the Decision]
1. Willful Infringement: A portion of the original damage award (~20%) in this case came from enhanced damages. The statute provides that “the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.” Although seemingly open-ended, the court has restricted enhanced damages only to the situations involving willful infringement — and further requiring “clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent.” and “this objectively-defined risk . . . was either known or so obvious that it should have been known.” (quoting Seagate).
The Federal Circuit has ruled that an adjudged infringer who presents an objectively reasonable (though ultimately deficient) defense at trial cannot be held liable for enhanced damages. Here, the court found that Marvell’s invalidity defense had some merit and was not ‘objectively unreasonable.’
2. Foreign Infringement: The original verdict included damages for all of the chips that resulted from Marvell’s use of the infringing methods sold worldwide – including chips that were manufactured abroad and never imported into the US. On remand, the Federal Circuit asked the lower court to reconsider particularly whether those chips made and used outside of the US could be considered as “sold” in the U.S. since, at times, the “place of inking” can be the location of the sale even if delivery is at a different location.
3. Laches: Under the equitable doctrine of laches, a patentee who has unreasonably and prejudicially delayed the filing of an infringement lawsuit will be barred from collecting damages for pre-filing infringement. The non-statutory (and potentially defunct) doctrine of Laches sits atop the statutory limit on collecting back damages that accrued more than six years before the filing of the infringement action. Here, the district court found that CMU’s six-year delay in filing suit after noticing the infringement was “unreasonable and inexcusable” and that Marvell had suffered some amount of evidentiary prejudice. However, the district court found that Marvell did not suffer economic prejudice due to the delay because, “Marvell . . . would have gone ahead with its infringement regardless, accepting the risk of liability.”
OT for those willing to learn: during oral arguments today in 14-1656 Progressive Casualty Insurance v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co one of the Federal Circuit judges on the panel (Taranto? Wallach) mocked the idea that the PTAB is acting as a “death squad.” Cue it up around 33:30.
Live and learn, folks. Live and learn.
[And dang if those aren’t some incredibly junky patents! Nobody could have predicted that the squeaky clean insurance industry would jump in headfirst when the gates to the swamp were opened …]
More education in 2014-1549 Progressive Casualty Insurance v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.
Judge [in disbelief]: As a basis for a statement in your brief [that the PTAB is a “death squad”] you are citing a press release … that you released?!
Patentee: Oh .. .er… um … context?
Judge: Seems very close to improper to me. I’m also disturbed by your statement in your brief that the Board is “predisposed” to invalidate a patent.
Patentee: Um mumble mumble fair inference mumble …
Judge [plainly p.o.’d]: So whenever a court rules against you, it’s “prejudiced”? I find that argument disturbing.
[Later]:
Patentee: We’re sorry.
Judge: The lesson learned is that when you make a statement that is unsupported, inaccurate or hyperbolic that it will cost you time to explain it.
—————————-
Who in their right mind would put nonsense like that in a brief in the first place? Practitioners: drink all the Internet kool-aid about the “patent ha ters” at the PTO and among the “Royal Nine” but for cripessake don’t waste the Federal Circuit’s time with your tired scripts. You’re much better off focusing on procedural minutiae to save your junky information processing patents.
The best part about this oral argument, in fact, was not the above exchange but the part where an insurance actuarian was deemed unfit to testify about the “automating” “technology” in the claim. LOL.
Sounds like Judge Wallach to me. He often criticizes counsel for hyperbolic arguments in briefs. A good example is footnote 1 in Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S., No. 2014-5058 (Feb. 26, 2015) (where the appellant suggested that an adverse decision could cause citizens to take up arms in rebellion). That footnote pales in comparison to his criticism of counsel at the beginning of the oral argument.
The funniest part is how Malcolm does not recognize his very own posting habits in what he mocks.
That (banned) acronym comes to mind!
posting habits
One key difference, “anon”, is that when I talk about grifting patent attorneys trying to make it rich off the Internet (or any other existing technology which the patent attorney “innovator” had zero to do with) by filing (and endlessly appealing) junky patent claims, I’ve got plenty of examples to support the characterization (and more and more keep popping up all the time — nobody could have predicted!).
It’s not “hyperbole” just because you wish nobody was pointing it out.
On the other hand, characterizing the PTAB as a “death squad” with a predetermined bias against patents … and citing some self-serving press release in support of that characterization …?! Wow. Just … wow.
Except I’m talking NOT about “examples of what others do,” but instead I am talking about your bloviating about patent law.
I don’t give a rip about the examples of the grifters and I typically do NOT defend them at all (you need a definition for that?)
Instead I discuss the law.
Maybe you should learn about this thing called law.
Hypothetical for MM, Ned, Night, et al:
Imagine a USSC case that overrules Alice as to the test(s) for abstractness, replacing it instead with a bright line rule accepted by almost everyone and easily applied to any method or software patent.
What, if any, huge problems would remain in the patent system?
Every thread turns back to subject matter/101. It’s clear that until this difference in philosophy is bridged, the system is bled of legitimacy, the litigation abusers will continue to thrive, and the economic benefits of a working system are squandered.
Martin, since Alice and Hotel Security are virtually identical in terms of a “test,” I see nothing wrong in the general approach where claims have mixed subject matter, some eligible, some not.
What you might be suggesting is a bright line test for abstractness? Well the MOT came close, but given that the Supremes unanimously rejected that test as a bright line test, I would suggest that you should not hold your breadth looking for a better one.
I still think the MOT, as a default test, is going to prevail such that if a claim fails the MOT, it would be presumed ineligible.
But we also have the issue of claiming a result, which is not so much about eligible subject matter as about true abstractness.
There are a lot of problems in the patent system caused in large measure by very poor decisions from the Federal Circuit in any number of cases. BMC Resources is a prime example. But there are many, many others.
Then we have the AIA — from one end to the other a mistake.
BMC Resources v. Paymentech was about indirect infringement only. How does that figure into the current discussion?
Troubled, the reference to BMC Resources was an answer to the question of whether there were problems in the patent system other than 101.
Martin: Imagine a USSC case that overrules Alice as to the test(s) for abstractness, replacing it instead with a bright line rule accepted by almost everyone and easily applied to any method or software patent.
Just for the record, the Supreme Court’s line is already fairly bright and is already accepted by “almost everyone.”
The fact that some self-interested patentees and their mouthpieces are endlessly slithering around the Internets and screeching about the “Royal Nine” might give the appearance of some huge “controversy” but there isn’t much that’s “controversial” about what the Supreme Court has done. What was “controversial” was what the Federal Circuit did when they blew a giant gaping hole into the hull of the patent system.
There’s no doubt that there will be further clarifications from the Supreme Court going forward, nor is there any doubt about the ultimate end point. The only question is how fast will we get there? It’s difficult to predict these things but my guess would be “sooner than you think.”
Of course, if the PTO and academia stepped up their game and started addressing the issues that have been put under their noses in a frank, direct and sensible fashion we’d have a smoother descent to solid ground (pun intended) than we otherwise will. The key is to start with the fundamentals and work outwards rather than assume the desired result and sweep the fundamentals under the rug for the benefit of a tiny, tiny, tiny number of people who don’t need more benefits.
MM I think Alice was a sound decision (9-0 means that they had a pretty clear idea of what they wanted to do) but I don’t agree that it offers many bright lines. I know this first hand.
It’s sound because we can’t have a patent system that patents ideas, as much as the maximalists wish it were so.
However, the forces of counter-revolution are not limited to the fringe we see here. IBM is stone-cold legitimate, and their opinions about patents carry a lot of weight (hence my utter dismay at their behavior in my case).
There are legitimate arguments that some kinds of software and business methods should be patent eligible, or the possibility that some future unknown kind of information technology should be – that’s why the USSC is so resistant to using MoT as a bright line test, even though its utility in 99% of situations is evident.
Your average software PHOSITA off the street probably thinks that especially inventive and useful software could be patent eligible, rather than thinking in terms of how software itself may relate to the patent laws. I’d say the same for the average businessperson. Patenting methods with abstract results sits rather less well with just about everyone outside the patent system, no surprise there.
Ned, there will always be hard cases and questionable decisions in all areas of law- no human system, esp. one meant to resolve disputes, could avoid that fact.
So can a bright line test be found that prevents patenting ideas (or results Ned), but still protects structural improvements in information processing machines and meets the Constitutional requirement to protect discovery and invention?
And if this line can be found, does it return the system to a sound state? I think it does.
I’ve spend a lot of time in thought about such a test….
Martin, do you understand that business methods are not improvements to machines, manufactures or compositions? There are no legitimate arguments that business methods are patentable subject matter. Improvements to machines, manufactures or composition for business purposes are, however, patentable.
Ned, most software patents are putatively methods- that’s what they say at the top anyway…
Of course, Martin, of course. They are methods.
Ned, your view of methods as a second class category just is not supported by the words of Congress.
What about to “processes”?
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Isn’t a business method a “process”? (And I’m anti-business-method, but one shouldn’t completely get rid of words of 35 USC 101.)
A bright line test for abstractness should encompass the notion that things that people do are “processes” in a patent sense. Or not.
Martin –
People do all invented processes. Who else does them? In some cases, they use tools in performing the process, in others they just use their hands and/or brain.
For example, I’m sure the process for making Lipitor involves combining chemicals (stirring?) and maybe heating them or subjecting them to increased pressure, them maybe filtering and perhaps drying…
These are all steps carried out by one or more people, in the lab, maybe with beakers, measuring thingies and boson burners and in large scale, perhaps with the use of hoppers and mixers and measuring sensors…
All invented processes are performed by people in one sense or another.
The Supreme Court’s line in Alice is “fairly bright”? What does that even mean? It’s either bright or it’s not. To me, it’s the antithesis of “bright”.
Also, please, please, please get rid of these obnoxious emails asking me if I want to confirm my subscription to these. I do not. I don’t have time to read the many responses MM is about to post anyway.
PatentBob,
When you post a comment, there is a drop-down box below the “Post Comment” button that lets you choose the level of email notifications you will receive regarding your comment. If you choose “Don’t subscribe”, you won’t get the emails.
Annoyingly, the drop-down is below the button for submitting new comments, so it’s easily missed, and it recently changed (for me, anyway) so that it’s defaulting to subscribing to notifications for every new comment.
As a suggestion to the good professor for enhancing the user-friendliness of Patently O, perhaps the submitter’s subscription preference could be retained and recalled for subsequent comments?
A Google factoid: today is the 101 anniversary of the first electric traffic signal system, something not likely to be patent eligible in today’s “Gist/Abstract” judicial environment.
Stomp on that gas pedal Folks.
And how do you “Gist/Abstract”? Invoke a witch word. The invention is an XXX and XXX are not patent eligible. Rather than actually looking at the elements, the combination of elements, and the claim as a whole.
The witch burners….
the first electric traffic signal system, something not likely to be patent eligible
Of course if “anon” and his “patent everything!” cohorts were around then they’d be sitting around in their barns and grifting themselves into a frenzy filing their super techno claims reciting “wherein said traffic is morning traffic”, “wherein said traffic is holiday traffic”, “wherein said traffic comprises a robot car”, “wherein said electricity is provided by a public utility”. Fun times!
Meanwhile, have a listen to today’s oral arguments in Liberty Mutual where the patents are directed to (try to believe it) “a system for acquiring and processing relevant data for an insured unit of risk”.
You guys broke the system, “anon”. Nobody needs your help trying to fix it. Just stock up on kleenex, lock yourself in a room for the next couple years, and cry your eyes out.
OH NOES – the g-g-g-grifters are coming!
What a chump.
he g-g-g-grifters are coming!
The grifters showed up quite a while ago, “anon.” Have you already forgotten about your bff Scotty and his patent on a new “paradigm”?
“A company is a physical thing and as such is analogous to a machine.” — so sayeth the desperate grifter as the court’s ring finger leaves a brilliant red mark across his grotesque money-lusting rictus
Ned –
You said”
” a viterbi detector is a specific, known machine. It can be implemented with circuits, with ASICS, with FPGAs, with programmed DSPs running “firmware.” Perhaps one could program one’s laptop to work in the context of debugging.””
Couldn’t the DSP instead run “software” and accomplish the same thing? You know cell phones and base stations use Viterbi detectors too. Do you think they have room in those things for a special circuit for Viterbi detect ing or do you think maybe in at least some models one processor does everything?
“It make no fricken difference HOW a known machine or component is constructed so long as it is a KNOWN machine.”
OH, I see. If you clam one method “for” a new machine, that’s abstract. If a method for an old machine, that’s patent eligible.
Wait a minute…. isn’t your main complaint that computers are known?
Don’t argue every day that a method for a computer is not patent eligible?
Why doesn’t that apply when the method does rasterizing or the method does Viterbi detection?
“From a 101 view, the claims improve a known machine. They pass 101.”
So If Bilski amended the preamble to say “for a Wang office computer” it would have passed 101?
“These are not claims to the use of a known computer to run calculations that are not used to improve a larger machine or process.”
Wait a minute…. now “known” is a bad thing? A minute ago you said know computers (Viterbi detectors) were golden.
Allegedly the claimed method makes a Viterbi detector better at Viterbi detecting. OK fine. That’s why its patent eligible… great
So, Why isn’t a method that makes a and intermediate settler better at, say intermediate settling patent eligible?
Les, one of my examples was in fact a programmed general-purpose digital computer. And in fact, in the case itself, the court found that using a programmed general-purpose computer while debugging the algorithm was an infringement.
Regarding the issue of known machines versus new machines, with respect to an old machine all you have to do is name it. With respect to a new machine you have to describe that machine with objective structural limitations in the claim.
Its a method. I’m not claiming a device. Since when are processes a second class invention that must be tied to hardware?
They are listed first, after all…
Doesn’t change the answer.
Doesn’t provide an answer.
Sure it does. If one is claiming something abstract that is rescued by being a part of a specific machine, that machine must be known so that it can be named or it must be described in the claim in structural terms.
A computer is not a specific machine. A claim to improving an old computer by adding new functionality to that computer might be a specific machine. Those examples involving FFT circuits or microcode are a good example.
“A computer is not a specific machine.”
Why not? Why is a Viterbi-like detector specific but computer is not? You yourself said there are a wide variety of these ASIC, DSP/Firmware, etc embodiments. Clearly some of them don’t include the feature of claim 1 here. Others apparently do. Why is Viterbi-like detector specific enough for your test but computer is not? What is a Viterbi -not-link detector? How is a Viterbi-like detector different from a Viterbi detector?
Is Automobile specific? Is 1967 Buick Skylark specific?
Is tractor specific? Is word processor specific (e.g., Wang)? Is word processor specific (E.G. PC running WORD)?
And who said there has to be a device recited in a method?
Your logic makes no sense and there is no basis for insisting that a method claim recite a device, known or unknown, “specific” as judged by you or not.
Les, I find is almost baffling that you do not understand simple concepts.
The point is that patents are for new or improved machines.
Does that help?
Ned –
Some patents are for processes. Does that help unbaffle you?
Now how about answering my questions.
Assuming “specific” is an actual issue, why is a computer not specific while “viterbi-like detector” is specific?
Ned –
My point was to provide a response to your assertion that :
“The point is that patents are for new or improved machines. “
And, Les, you seem to deny that a process can define the improved structure of a machine or for that matter a system.
Processes can define a new or improved machine or define the use of a machine to produce a new, physical result.
Where is your problem?
But when a computer defined generically, the computer is being used — no new structure is even implied. Thus the process must produce a new physical result, or be part of a larger machine so that it is improved.
Ned – it is amazing that you do not see that “to process” and “to use” are the same thing, leastwise in the context of how those terms are used here.
Ned – you said:
“But when a computer defined generically, the computer is being used — no new structure is even implied. Thus the process must produce a new physical result, or be part of a larger machine so that it is improved.”
First of all, new function does imply new structure, e.g., a new arrangement of electrons.
Second of all, even if it doesn’t, why would one have to define new “structure” IN A METHOD CLAIM?
Les, how does one “name” a structure that does not exist?
“1. A method of determining branch metric values for branches of a trellis for a Virterbi-like detector, comprising:”
Now assume a Viterbi decoder was unknown. How does one limit the claim to a Viterbi decoder unless one describes what it is?
But isn’t that known machine simply conventional? What is a specific machine? Is a car a specific machine? A slot machine? An iPhone? Does it matter?
How can a known, conventional machine in any way shape or form save a claim including an abstract idea? Unless it somehow changes its operation, but then the fact that it’s a specific machine is irrelevant, right?
“but”: How can a known, conventional machine in any way shape or form save a claim including an abstract idea? Unless it somehow changes its operation, but then the fact that it’s a specific machine is irrelevant, right?
Very insightful, s0ckie!
Ned is reaching for a lifeline made from a single strand of wet cotton.
Les, of course, is in far worse shape because he’s trying to build an entire house on that same strand of wet cotton.
but,
Improvements to machines are patentable subject matter.
DO YOU GET IT?
MM, how can these people be so dense?
Software rules are abstract Ned. I don’t have to pay attention to them. Old machines + rules = ineligible. Yawn. Appeal me.
Software? Whose talking about software?
Software does not improve a computer. A programmed computer in the context of a larger machine or process however is a horse of a different color.
It is simply amazing that we can explain these things 100Million times and it still does not sink in to some of you.
Ned –
The claims at issue here include method claims.
1. A method of determining branch metric values for branches of a trellis for a Virterbi-like detector, comprising:
selecting a branch metric function for each of the branches at a certain time index; and
applying each of said selected functions to a plurality of signal samples to determine the metric value corresponding to the branch for which the applied branch metric function was selected, wherein each sample corresponds to a different sampling time instant.
The selecting and applying are clearly intended to be done by a processor (e.g. DSP). Else, this would be a recitation of “mental step” and we would be dealing with that nonsense… hence we are talking about a method that can be implemented in software, so, in that sense we are talking about software.
Les, Regarding your post that the claim is a method claim, do you have a point?
Ned –
The point was to provide a response to your assertion that :
“The point is that patents are for new or improved machines. “
Ned –
1) You haven’t answered why a computer is not specific but Viterbi-like detector is.
2) You are dropping the “-like”.
3) You are switching from the recited detector to the actually know decoder…
4) Its a method claim. Those recite steps not devices. Field of use “limitations” don’t save an abstract claim any more.
I think if a Viterbi-like detector were known it would have its own name, don’t you?
Is a Viterbi detector encompassed by “Viterbi-like detector” or are Viterbi-like detectors not quite Viterbi detectors and therefore ones detector can be in one category but not both?
Les, where the computer is improved, certainly the claim is eligible.
But where the computer is simply being used for its intended purpose, the method does not define any improvement to the computer.
These distinctions abound in the case law, except when reading something from the CCPA and Federal Circuit until recently.
The machine must be improved. A method of using a machine does not define a new machine. But even here the claim might define patentable subject matter if the process produces a new physical result.
“But where the computer is simply being used for its intended purpose, the method does not define any improvement to the computer.”
What is the intended purpose of a computer Ned?
What is an improvement to a computer Ned?
Is Windows 10 an improvement to a computer?
Does installing WORD on a computer improve the word processing capabilities of the computer? I sure think so.
You STILL haven’t explained why Viterbi-like detector is particular and Computer is not.
Two massive call outs of Ned B$ here:
Contrast the plain and direct post below at 3.1.1 (“A programmed computer is not a particular machine.“) with Ned ‘s post here – whaaaaaat?
Take Ned’s usual C R P of Jepson style claim format as somehow being a required claim format and exchange it for the equally vap1d – and equally wrong – Malcolm canard of the option of “objective physical structure” as somehow being more than just an option – and directly denied by none other than Prof. Crouch’s coined term of Vast Middle Ground, and take the fact that these discussion points have been provided to Ned many times, and you are left with one rather unsavory conclusion of Ned’s advocacy efforts here.
Then, as if that were not enough, and to fold in Les’s “I am claiming a method” point, the Act of 1952 explicitly pointed out that method claims involving use of old things is “entirely” eligible.
So even if for arguments sake we let Ned get away with his purposeful obfuscation of trying to make software the execution of software, his point STILL does not reach under a proper view of the law as written by Congress.
“anon” the Act of 1952 explicitly pointed out that method claims involving use of old things is “entirely” eligible.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Run with that one.
Feel free to make an actual point on that part of the Act of 1952, Malcolm.
But before you “spin,” note in context both the quotes and my well eatablished position of 101’s other requirement of proper utility.
Try saying something intelligent that is not a mischaracterization.
Pretend that you have some ethics.
note in context both the quotes and my well eatablished position of 101’s other requirement of proper utility.
All methods aren’t patent-eligible, nor are all methods of using old apparati patent-eligible. That’s what’s “well-established”.
Be sure to educate your clients now that you’ve been educated.
Your “response” does not address my post at 10.1.2.1 – at all.
What exactly do you think that I should “learn” from such vap1dity? Is that really your idea of “educating” someone?
Maybe you want to try again and actually pay attention to what I write.
“
somehow not a “common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.“…
Ring a bell?
Here is what is “well-established”
35 U.S. Code § 100 – Definitions
(b) The term “process” means process, art or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material.
The key is to start with the fundamentals and work outwards rather than assume the desired result and sweep the fundamentals under the rug for the benefit of a tiny, tiny, tiny number of people who simply want their philosophy installed.
The problem you have Malcolm is that you want a different set of laws and it is YOU that is not starting with the actual fundamentals.
The tactic that you employ is one of obfuscation as to the actual law, attempting to make what you want to be the law seem as if that were the law already, and that that law was being violated.
It just is not so.
I “get” you want a different law. I have NO problem with your opinion of what you want that different law to be. I have EVERY problem with your dishonest tactics of portraying “the basics.”
Everyone should have a problem with your tactics. They are the epitome of a lack of ethics. They are the very worst of the “ends justify the means” human condition that permeates most injustices in this world. Someone ALWAYS has a different viewpoint of the desired ends – it is NEVER acceptable to have those ends justify “whatever” means.
Having observed for 20 years or so the passionate Munich versus London to-and-fro debate about eligibility under the EPC, on the “claim dissection” issue “, I’m reading this thread and am reminded of the story of Good Old King Canute and the tide. Why? Because even I can see that in the USA, on the eligibility issue, the tide has turned, and is now a rip-tide in the other direction. Does any self-respecting officer of the court, in house or in private practive, seriously think that it can be turned back? Or do they know it can’t but nevertheless doggedly continue to try the patience of the court because of some higher imperative, like protecting the reputation (and financial well-being) of the guy that put them into the unfortunate position in which they all find themselves, now that the tide has turned so decisively.
Besides, for a great many people, railing at the iniquity of it all is a great comfort.
Not sure the point you want to make there MaxDrei, other than perhaps you once again don’t grasp the situation.
It appears that with a description like riptide and the implication that things won’t come back that you view this as not a cycle – but the tides are a cycle – one of the most repeatable ones. Whatever the laments at low tide, you can surely count on a high tide to follow.
As night follows day.
As pro-patent follows anti-patent.
Anon and MaxDrei,
So far, there isn’t much of a tide. One would think that a dire state of affairs would cause a drop-off in patent filings. According to the PTO Dashboard, post Alice, Class 705 (business method) new patent applications have dropped from abut 1200 per month to about 900, but overall fillings are still running about 30,000 – 40,000 per month. The National Science Foundation provides statistics on R&D expenditures. Unfortunately, there is a lag of about two years. If R&D does not start declining, then it will be hard to make the case that a busted patent system is damaging the US economic future. Rate of start-up formation should be a useful early indicator, but I don’t have data at the moment. Perhaps someone else can chime in.
Tides do not change the amount of water in the ocean….
As anon points out, after the tide goes out, it comes back in again. Any judicial over-enthusiasm, to find subject matter to be nothing significantly more than “abstract”, will surely abate, as night follows day. Then, when folks learn how to draft their patent applications in such a way that the “abstract” objection isn’t raised at all, the tide will come back in again.
Wasn’t it Night Writer who suggested that drafters cannot do any better now than to follow European drafting style, to shoehorn their clients’ subject matter into the technological arts? Once you have filed though, it’s a bit late (under First Inventor to File) to patch the drafting style. So it will take quite some time for the pendulum to swing back.
And so the tide ebbs and flows. You have to shut your eyes though, to not see the tide running, before your very eyes.
And once the tide is in again, and the Court “feels” that scriveners are “taking too much” by hewing to the mere words of the statute, they will stick their fingers into the Wax Nose again…
Unless we try to stop and learn from history….
MD: As anon points out, after the tide goes out, it comes back in again.
And the South is going to rise again!
LOL
What the Sam Hill are you talking about?
The South…?
Why would the debate about business method patents have anything to do with providing a disincentive to file patents on circuits, drugs, machines, or anything else?
Even so, it is a wonder to me that anybody is fine anything in the business method area.
What is killing the patent system more than the cases on eligible subject matter are IPRs.
Ned,
Based on the undiminished rate of new applications, would you say the word has not yet gotten out.
Troubled, one can only wonder why anyone would file a business method patent today, especially after what happened to Versata.