LATEST SUPREME COURT PATENT RULINGS
HOW MANY SUPREME COURT JUSTICES DOES IT TAKE TO STIFLE INNOVATION?
Aereo smells enough like a cable company to find it infringes. But don’t call it a cable company when it comes time to compulsory licensing.
Go Ask Alice – Abstract Ideas Are Not Patentable
ALICE CORPORATION PTY. LTD. v. CLS BANK INTERNATIONAL ET AL.
Petitioner Alice Corporation is the assignee of several patents that dis- close a scheme for mitigating “settlement risk,” i.e., the risk that only one party to an agreed-upon financial exchange will satisfy its obliga- tion. In particular, the patent claims are designed to facilitate the exchange of financial obligations between two parties by using a computer system as a third-party intermediary. The patents in suit claim (1) a method for exchanging financial obligations, (2) a computer system configured to carry out the method for exchanging obligations, and (3) a computer-readable medium containing program code for performing the method of exchanging obligations. Held: Because the claims are drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea, they are not patent eligible under §101.. . . Here, the representative method claim does no more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. . . . An instruction to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement using some unspecified, generic computer is not “enough” to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
ABOUT JOEL . . .
Mr. Voelzke obtained his law degree in 1995 from U.S.C. where he was an editor of the school’s Interdisciplinary Law Journal and president of the school’s Intellectual Property Law Society, and finished in the top third of his class. He specializes in intellectual property law, principally patents and trademarks.
Prior to establishing his own office, Mr. Voelzke was a partner at Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly which was an international law firm at the time. Mr. Voelzke represents clients ranging in size from startup technology companies to Fortune 500 companies. Mr. Voelzke’s representative clients include: Hewlett-Packard Company; Avery Dennison Corporation; MGA Entertainment, Inc.; Magnecomp Corporation; VIS Racing Sports, Inc.; Pricegrabber.com, Inc.; Menache LLC; Quiklite, Inc.; Electronics for Imaging, Inc.; New Dream Network, LLC; National R.V. Inc.; Country Coach LLC; and TechnoConcepts, Inc.
He has obtained numerous patents for clients in a wide range of disciplines including electronic circuit design and testing, image compression and decompression, magnetic disk drive head suspensions, communication systems, security systems, computer architecture, after market automobile styling products, office products, civil engineering, and solar cell fabrication. In addition to having obtained numerous patents and trademark registrations for his clients, Mr. Voelzke’s practice includes strategic intellectual property client counseling, opinions, licensing, and contracts. Mr. Voelzke is also an intellectual property litigator, having successfully represented clients in federal and state courts in patent, trademark, trade dress, domain name, trade secret, Internet, and other disputes. Mr. Voelzke has written a number of professional articles and has addressed bar association meetings and entrepreneurs’ conferences on various intellectual property topics.
Before attending law school Mr. Voelzke obtained his engineering degree from Harvey Mudd College, one of the premier engineering schools in the country. In his nine years of industry experience as an electrical engineer Mr. Voelzke designed analog and digital circuitry, and troubleshot circuits and systems for Litton Guidance and Control Systems, Singer Librascope, and Teledyne Systems Company. He has studied various advanced topics in electrical engineering at CSU Northridge and UCLA including computer design, digital signal processing, digital filtering, and adaptive signal processing.
Mr. Voelzke has spoken to bar association groups on various topics within the field of intellectual property law, and has written a number of professional articles
Mr. Voelzke is admitted to practice in California, before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
He has volunteered his time to the Los Angeles County Bar Association Domestic Violence project which assists victims of domestic violence in obtaining restraining orders against their abusers, and Rebuilding Together which renovates the homes of disabled elderly residents of South Central Los Angeles.
Patent Marking Under 35 U.S.C. §287(a): Products, Processes, and the Deception of the Public, 29 INTELL. PROP. L. REV. 21 (1997) (co-winner of the Federal Circuit Bar Association writing competition, and selected as one of the best intellectual property law review articles of the year)
Congress Aims its Cannons at Domain Name Pirates, 15 COMPUTER LAW ASS’N BULL. NO. 1 (2000)
Don’t Shoot; I’m Just the Website Host!, 20 Computer & Internet Lawyer No.5 (May 2003)
The Law of Unintended Consequences: How the DMCA’s Anti-Circumvention Provisions are Being Used to Circumvent Anti-Tying Law, 12 Century City Lawyer No. 3 (March 2003)
Copyright from Copy-Wrong, Hosting Tech (Dec. 2002)