Tag: § 101
Yet More Evidence That NPEs Are Harmful To Innovation
Profs. Cohen, Gurun, and Kominers first published a paper collecting evidence of the impacts of NPEs on innovation in 2014. Recently, they updated the paper, incorporating additional evidence and re...
Getting The Future Backwards: Iancu’s Comments On § 101 At IPO
This morning, Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Director Iancu gave remarks at the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) Annual Meeting. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given IPO’s efforts to leg...
RALIA Would Take Us Back To The Patent Law Stone Age
At the end of June, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced the “Restoring America's Leadership in Innovation Act of 2018,” H.R. 6264 (RALIA). RALIA, rather than restoring American innovation, aims...
Iancu’s First Hearing Answers Questions, Leaves More Open
On Wednesday, April 18, new USPTO Director Andrei Iancu appeared for his first oversight hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Director was more open with the Committee compared to...
A New § 101 Trio Shows That We Don’t Need § 101 Legislation
The Bilski, Alice, Mayo, and Myriad cases are sometimes referred to as a § 101 quartet because they set forth the Supreme Court’s test for patentable subject matter under § 101. Over the past fe...
The Alice Drizzle—Barely Even Noticeable
At the end of the year, I took a look at whether Alice really had a significant impact on patents as a whole. The answer was that Alice simply doesn’t affect that many patent applications. But s...
The “Alice Storm” Is More Of A Drizzle
You might be familiar with Bob Sachs’ term “Alice Storm.” Sachs and his co-authors over at Bilski Blog argue that “Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank has had a dramatic impact on the allowability of comp...
The PTO’s § 101 Summary Report
One of the most important developments over the past few years is the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice v. CLS Bank - a decision that articulated a distinction between patent-eligible inventions, an...