B. 35 USCS § 101
“Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof…”
Patentable software falls under the category of “process,” which is the source of much of the controversy surrounding the patentability of program code. Critics claim that the intangible nature of software renders it a mere concept or idea that places it outside the purview of patent law. However, the Founding Fathers clearly intended to “promote Science and the Useful Arts,” and no one can argue that software hasn’t been the engine of a steady stream of remarkable technologies that have enriched the lives of billions of people and driven tremendous economic growth. Clearly, software developers are the inventors and discoverers of new and useful processes.
The following applies the criteria stipulated in 35 USCS § 101 to software and are edited excerpts from Lexis case notes; italics are added for emphasis and are not in the original text.
Validity
[P]atent invalidity, if proven, was legally sufficient defense to patent infringement. Wireless Ink Corp. v Facebook, Inc. (2011, SD NY) 787 F Supp 2d 298.
Defendants' counterclaims that U.S. Pat. No. 7,599,983 and each claim thereof were invalid under 35 USCS §§ 101 et seq. and 35 USCS §§ 101, 102, 103, 112 et seq. were rejected as allegations failed to show why defendants were entitled to declaration of invalidity of '983 patent since claim was wholly conclusory and failed to satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Wireless Ink Corp. v Facebook, Inc. (2011, SD NY) 787 F Supp 2d 298.
Construction
It is the duty of U.S. Supreme Court to construe patent statutes as they currently read, in light of prior precedents; the court must proceed cautiously when asked to extend patent rights into areas wholly unforeseen by Congress. Patent rights should not be expanded by overruling or modifying prior cases construing patent statutes unless the argument for expansion of privilege is based on more than mere inference from ambiguous statutory language. Parker v Flook (1978) 437 US 584, 57 L Ed 2d 451, 98 S Ct 2522, 198 USPQ 193.
Patent laws are given a wide scope; courts should not read into federal patent laws limitations and conditions the legislature has not expressed. Diamond v Chakrabarty (1980) 447 US 303, 65 L Ed 2d 144, 100 S Ct 2204, 206 USPQ 193.
C. 35 USCS § 102: Novelty; prior art
Patentable software falls under the category of “process,” which is the source of much of the controversy surrounding the patentability of program code. Critics claim that the intangible nature of software renders it a mere concept or idea that places it outside the purview of patent law. However, the Founding Fathers clearly intended to “promote Science and the Useful Arts,” and no one can argue that software hasn’t been the engine of a steady stream of remarkable technologies that have enriched the lives of billions of people and driven tremendous economic growth. Clearly, software developers are the inventors and discoverers of new and useful processes.
The following applies the criteria stipulated in 35 USCS § 101 to software and are edited excerpts from Lexis case notes; italics are added for emphasis and are not in the original text.
Validity
[P]atent invalidity, if proven, was legally sufficient defense to patent infringement. Wireless Ink Corp. v Facebook, Inc. (2011, SD NY) 787 F Supp 2d 298.
Defendants' counterclaims that U.S. Pat. No. 7,599,983 and each claim thereof were invalid under 35 USCS §§ 101 et seq. and 35 USCS §§ 101, 102, 103, 112 et seq. were rejected as allegations failed to show why defendants were entitled to declaration of invalidity of '983 patent since claim was wholly conclusory and failed to satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Wireless Ink Corp. v Facebook, Inc. (2011, SD NY) 787 F Supp 2d 298.
Construction
It is the duty of U.S. Supreme Court to construe patent statutes as they currently read, in light of prior precedents; the court must proceed cautiously when asked to extend patent rights into areas wholly unforeseen by Congress. Patent rights should not be expanded by overruling or modifying prior cases construing patent statutes unless the argument for expansion of privilege is based on more than mere inference from ambiguous statutory language. Parker v Flook (1978) 437 US 584, 57 L Ed 2d 451, 98 S Ct 2522, 198 USPQ 193.
Patent laws are given a wide scope; courts should not read into federal patent laws limitations and conditions the legislature has not expressed. Diamond v Chakrabarty (1980) 447 US 303, 65 L Ed 2d 144, 100 S Ct 2204, 206 USPQ 193.
C. 35 USCS § 102: Novelty; prior art
Copyright 2014-2015 by Dennis O'Reilly/Rag Hall -- All rights reserved.