www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Luis Villa <l...@lu.is>
Subject Re: Another CACF patent case
Date Mon, 17 Nov 2014 19:49:54 GMT
The concurrence's language on 101 is indeed very strong, although not
binding; and would appear to thread the needle in a way that allows the few
genuinely innovative software patents while throwing out the vast majority
of them — an approach the Supreme Court had called for but not provided
much guidance on.

Is anyone keeping an actively updated scorecard of the post-Alice 101
rulings? Has *any* internet/software patent survived a post-Alice 101
challenge yet?

Luis

On Mon Nov 17 2014 at 3:51:58 AM Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> Another U.S. software patent bites the dust.
>
>
>
> For those of you who are eagerly following the post-*Alice *software
> patent situation in the U.S., the attached concurring opinion by Judge
> Mayer in *Ultramercial v. Hulu and Wildtangent* will give you heart. For
> those of you who are patent attorneys, the concurring opinion will give you
> heartburn.
>
>
>
> The concurring opinion is attached to this email. The entire decision is
> at
> http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-1544.Opinion.11-12-2014.1.PDF.
>
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

Mime
View raw message