Warning: include(wp-includes/class-wp-query-update.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/content/47/4534047/html/wp-settings.php on line 473

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening 'wp-includes/class-wp-query-update.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/local/php5/lib/php') in /home/content/47/4534047/html/wp-settings.php on line 473

Warning: include(wp-includes/class-wp-term-connect.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/content/47/4534047/html/wp-config.php on line 80

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening 'wp-includes/class-wp-term-connect.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/local/php5/lib/php') in /home/content/47/4534047/html/wp-config.php on line 80
En Banc Oral Arguments One Month Away « 717 Madison Place

En Banc Oral Arguments One Month Away

The Federal Circuit will sit en banc and hear oral argument in the cases of CLS v. Alice and Bosch v. Pylon in exactly one month.

The questions presented in CLS v. Alice are:

a. What test should the court adopt to determine whether a computer-implemented invention is a patent ineligible “abstract idea”; and when, if ever, does the presence of a computer in a claim lend patent eligibility to an otherwise patent-ineligible idea?

b. In assessing patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of a computer-implemented invention, should it matter whether the invention is claimed as a method, system, or storage medium; and should such claims at times be considered equivalent for § 101 purposes?

At this stage, the big questions in my mind are whether: (1) Richard Taranto will have been confirmed and sworn-in by February 8th; and (2) whether either Judge O’Malley or Judge Moore will have any reason to recuse themselves.  With respect to this second issue, I hope not.

In the en banc appeal of Bosch v. Pylon, the court will consider:

a. Does 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(2) confer jurisdiction on this Court to entertain appeals from patent infringement liability determinations when a trial on damages has not yet occurred?

b. Does 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(2) confer jurisdiction on this Court to entertain appeals from patent infringement liability determinations when willfulness issues are outstanding and remain undecided?

Comments are closed.