Patent Riffs and Links for 10-21-16 – the Alice Pendulum?

Perdiemco, LLC. v. Industrack LLC (E.D. Tex. 2016) | PATENTDOCS.ORGSign of the pendulum swinging back? “the Court found some patents having method claims directed to ‘conveying user location’ to be patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Much of the reasoning was based on the recent Federal Circuit decision McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., and even though the claims are generally broad and only include basic/generic computer components, the claims survived a § 101 challenge. This is good for patentees and patent owners, as some Courts are now more willing to allow software patent claims to survive.”

AliceStorm Update for Fall 2016 | BILSKIBLOGStats show a potential shift…“September 2016 was the first time since Alice that the number of federal court decisions finding eligible subject matter (16) exceeded those finding ineligible subject matter (13). Those sixteen decisions also mark the highest number of eligibility decisions in a single month.”

What’s happened to software inventions? Five unexpected facts that will change how you see patent eligibility | FROSTBROWNTODD
“In Alice, the Supreme Court explained that the reason for treating certain subject matter as ineligible is to avoid pre-emption. However, current subject matter eligibility jurisprudence is clearly not limited to only invalidating claims where necessary to avoid preemption. Some opinions have also hinted at policy-based reasons for aggressively policing subject matter eligibility…”

To Be, or Not to Be? Shakespeare and CBMs | BLOG.WOLFGREENFIELD
Eliminated financial, dep. claims to avoid a CBM… “The patent owner concluded it would better to suffer the outrageous fortune of giving up those dependent claims than to take arms against a sea of troubles that typically befall a patent challenged under §101 in a CBM trial…The patent owner reasoned that following a disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a), the dependent claims must be treated as if they never existed. Thus, there were no claims related to a financial product or service in the patent.”

Inside Intellectual Ventures’ Portfolio: Nearly 500 University Patents | BLOG.IP
EFF wants universities to eliminate patent sales to PAEs – “Harvard researcher Yarden Katz has just published some fascinating findings on which universities have sold patents to notorious patent-holding company Intellectual Ventures (IV). Of the nearly 30,000 active patents that IV lists publicly, 470 of them were originally assigned to universities—a total of 61 institutions.”