717 Madison Place

Limelight has filed its Reply Brief in the Supreme Court case of Limelight v. Akamai.  This case deals with the issue of divided infringement.  The oral argument is slated for next Wednesday.

You can read Limelight’s Reply Brief [here].

The US Patent and Trademark Office released the ninth edition of the MPEP in March.  A summary by the PTO of the changes is available here: [Summary].  The searchable version of the MPEP is available here: [Searchable MPEP].

I was on vacation last week doing some scuba diving in the Caribbean.  But, I took some time off to try and better understand the phenomenon of “submarine patents.”  This little mini-submersible takes people down to a depth of 1,000 feet.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of Alice v. CLS Bank on March 31st.

You can download/listen to the entire oral argument here: [Listen].

The transcript of the oral argument is available here:  [Transcript].

The briefs are available here: [Briefs].

You can listen to the various portions of the oral argument here:

• ORAL ARGUMENT OF CARTER G. PHILLIPS, ESQ. on behalf of the Petitioners:  [Listen]
• ORAL ARGUMENT OF MARK A. PERRY, ESQ. on behalf of the    Respondents:  [Listen]
• ORAL ARGUMENT OF DONALD B. VERRILLI, JR., ESQ. on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting Respondents:  [Listen]
• REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF CARTER G. PHILLIPS, ESQ. on behalf of the Petitioners:  [Listen].

For reference, one of the claims at issue is claim 26 from US Patent 7,725,375:

26. A data processing system to enable the exchange of an obligation between parties, the system comprising:

a communications controller,

a first party device, coupled to said communications controller,

a data storage unit having stored therein

(a) information about a first account for a first party, independent from a second account maintained by a first exchange institution, and

(b) information about a third account for a second party, independent from a fourth account maintained by a second exchange institution; and

a computer, coupled to said data storage unit and said communications controller, that is configured to

(a) receive a transaction from said first party device via said communications controller;

(b) electronically adjust said first account and said third account in order to effect an exchange obligation arising from said transaction between said first party and said second party after ensuring that said first party and/or said second party have adequate value in said first account and/or said third account, respectively; and

(c) generate an instruction to said first exchange institution and/or said second exchange institution to adjust said second account and/or said fourth account in accordance with the adjustment of said first account and/or said third account, wherein said instruction being an irrevocable, time invariant obligation placed on said first exchange institution and/or said second exchange institution.

The briefing continues in the Supreme Court case of Limelight v. Akamai with respect to the issue of divided infringement.  Akamai filed its brief last week.  The ABA site has all the briefs, including amicus briefs.

Limelight’s opening brief is available [here].

Akamai’s brief is available [here].

Limelight’s reply brief is due in a few weeks.

I have been trying to think about how the definition ultimately given to an “abstract idea” might affect other areas of the law.  For example, if software is deemed an abstract idea, it seems inevitable that someone will argue that you shouldn’t be able to tax software as an abstract idea.  Similarly, if software is deemed an abstract idea, it seems inevitable that someone will argue that “market power” under the antitrust laws can’t exist in something that is abstract.  Moreover, if software is deemed an abstract idea, it seems likely that someone will argue that the UCC does not apply to transactions of something that is abstract.

I kind of like the taxability issue as a tool for assessing patent eligibility.  Namely, if you can tax the full extent of the goods or services embodied in a patent claim, then it should not be deemed abstract.

In case there was any doubt that history repeats itself, a new case was filed last week captioned Gramm v. Deere and Co. Alright, not quite Graham v. John Deere and Co.; but, close enough.

The case illustrates that in 21st century patent litigation even patents on farm machinery recite controllers and sensors.  They probably even rely on . . . software . . . oh, the horror!

The oral argument of the week is from COMPRESSION TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, LLC v. EMC CORPORATION, No. 2013-1513 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 10, 2014). The case was argued on March 4, 2014 and resulted in a Rule 36 affirmance.  The oral argument addresses patent eligibility issues under 35 U.S.C. §101.

With Alice v. CLS to be decided by the Supreme Court in a mere 3.5 months, it is interesting that the panel decided this case so promptly.

You can listen to the oral argument here: [Listen].

You can review the Rule 36 opinion here: [Link].

The Reply Brief in Alice v. CLS Bank is now available.  You can download it [here].

Professor Mann of the SCOTUSblog has a nice evenhanded overview of the Alice v. CLS case:  [Link].

I believe Alice’s reply brief is due today or tomorrow.  I’ll post it when it becomes available.