Federal Circuit Again Finds Computer-Implemented Invention Patent Eligible

In Tuesday’s McRO v. Bandai decision, the Federal Circuit has once again reversed a district court’s determination that a computer-implemented invention (aka “software patent”) was not patent eligible under Section 101 of the Patent Act. This continues the Federal Circuit’s recent trend of clarifying the Supreme Court’s two-step patent-eligibility test under Mayo and Alice. The … Continue reading “Federal Circuit Again Finds Computer-Implemented Invention Patent Eligible”

Law Professors & Economists Urge Caution on VENUE Act in Letter to Congress

Today, 28 law professors, economists, and political scientists from across the nation submitted a letter to Congress expressing serious concerns about the recent push for sweeping changes to patent litigation venue rules, such as those proposed in the VENUE Act. The letter is copied below, and it can be downloaded here: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2816062 Although proponents for … Continue reading “Law Professors & Economists Urge Caution on VENUE Act in Letter to Congress”

CPIP Scholars File Amicus Brief in Trading Technologies v. CQG

Earlier this month, CPIP Senior Scholar Adam Mossoff penned an amicus brief in Trading Technologies v. CQG, currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit. The brief was joined by nine other IP scholars, including CPIP Senior Scholars Mark Schultz and Kristen Osenga. The amici argue that Trading Technologies’ graphical user interface (GUI) constitutes patentable subject … Continue reading “CPIP Scholars File Amicus Brief in Trading Technologies v. CQG”

Federal Circuit Brings Some Clarity and Sanity Back to Patent Eligibility Doctrine

By Adam Mossoff and Kevin Madigan Following the Supreme Court’s four decisions on patent eligibility for inventions under § 101 of the Patent Act, there has been much disruption and uncertainty in the patent system. The patent bar and most stakeholders in the innovation industries have found the Supreme Court’s decisions in Alice Corp. v. … Continue reading “Federal Circuit Brings Some Clarity and Sanity Back to Patent Eligibility Doctrine”

How Strong Patents Make Wealthy Nations

By Devlin Hartline & Kevin Madigan How did the world’s wealthiest nations grow rich? The answer, according to Professor Stephen Haber of Stanford University, is that “they had well-developed systems of private property.” In Patents and the Wealth of Nations, recently published in the CPIP Conference issue of the George Mason Law Review, Haber explains … Continue reading “How Strong Patents Make Wealthy Nations”

No Consensus That Broad Patent ‘Reform’ is Necessary or Helpful

Here’s a brief excerpt of an op-ed by Adam Mossoff & Devlin Hartline that was published in The Hill: Two recent op-eds published in The Hill argue that broad patent legislation—misleadingly labeled “reform”—is needed because the U.S. patent system is fundamentally broken. In the first, Timothy Lee contends that opponents “cannot with a straight face” … Continue reading “No Consensus That Broad Patent ‘Reform’ is Necessary or Helpful”

Federal Circuit Should Reconsider Ariosa v. Sequenom: The Panel Decision Threatens Modern Innovation

Here’s a brief excerpt of a post by Devlin Hartline that was published on IPWatchdog. In an amicus brief co-authored by Kevin Noonan of McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP and Professor Adam Mossoff of George Mason University School of Law, twenty-three law professors urge the Federal Circuit to take a second look at the … Continue reading “Federal Circuit Should Reconsider Ariosa v. Sequenom: The Panel Decision Threatens Modern Innovation”

Patent Licensing and Secondary Markets in the Nineteenth Century

The following post comes from CPIP Programs and Research Associate Terrica Carrington, a rising 3L at George Mason University School of Law, and Devlin Hartline, Assistant Director at CPIP. They review a paper from CPIP’s 2014 Fall Conference, Common Ground: How Intellectual Property Unites Creators and Innovators, that was recently published in the George Mason … Continue reading “Patent Licensing and Secondary Markets in the Nineteenth Century”

Statement of Professor Adam Mossoff on Akamai v. Limelight

By Adam Mossoff In Akamai v. Limelight, the Federal Circuit expanded its definition of what it means for someone to be directly liable for patent infringement when they direct or control other people’s actions.  Through its proper judicial role in interpreting the meaning of the portion of the Patent Act defining direct infringement — Section … Continue reading “Statement of Professor Adam Mossoff on Akamai v. Limelight”