LQP PatentCast | Thompson Patent Law| Austin Patent Attorney

LQP PatentCast

The Litigation Quality Patents® PatentCast, hosted by Craige Thompson (a.k.a., “The Examiner Whisperer”) contains substantive discussion designed to keep you current with what’s going on in the world of patents, encompassing everything from patent prosecution and re-examination to patent licensing and litigation.


ZeroClick, LLC v. Apple Inc.


Summary: Had Apple been successful, many more software patents would have been put on life support.

Although ZeroClick's finger gesture patents were temporarily brought back to life on appeal, Apple has ample avenues to kill it off permanently on remand back to the trial court in the Northern District of California.  The patent, which was drafted pro se by a doctor who wanted to improve the patient charting process without having to click on a pointer, was not invalid on the ground that it should be interpreted in means plus function form (if it were so interpreted, it would likely have stayed dead). Apple did not appear worried.

Apple appears to have simply used the opportunity on a relatively weak patent to try to undermine a huge swath of all software patents that might have been subject to means plus function rules.  Had Apple been successful, many more software patents would have been put on life support.  

However, the Federal Circuit reversed Apple's win below, and the result is that software patent claims are more likely to survive if they recite terms like "User Interface Code" or "Program Code," which makes them more likely to be considered sufficiently definite structure (like "circuit" is for hardware), and less likely to fall under the more challenging means plus function rules.


DDR Holdings V. Digital River

​​You Must Use Analogy to Patent Software



SAP America V. Investpic

​​The Federal Circuit burns off some of the fog surrounding software claims at Step 2 of the Alice inquiry.



Mastermine Software V Microsoft

​​The 4 layers that must be considered to properly interpret a patent claim​​



MCRO v. Bandai Namco

​When is software that automates a human task patentable?



Allied Mineral Products v. OSMI

​Don’t Fear The [Patent Declaratory Judgment] Reaper.



Berkheimer v. HP

​A Double Win For Software Patent Owners!



Enfish v. Microsoft Corp.

3 lessons on How to Patent Software Claims



PRESIDIO Components, Inc., v. American Technical Ceramics

 Fending Off A Patent



Arctic cat v. Bombardier

 how Arctic Cat successfully enforced and monetized its patent with a patent license



Travel Sentry v. david tropp

 How Business Owners Can Get Surprised by Patent Infringement



Electric Power Group v Alstom

 Patenting Software: Red Flags To Check For             



Ex parte stefan hartman

 Case Study: How Not to Write Software Claims       



G. David Jang M.D. vs Boston Scientific Corporation

 Do you want to license your patent for $50 million?



VISUAL MEMORY V NVIDIA

 Money in the middle of conventional extremes.    



INTELLECTUAL Ventures LLC  v.  Motorola Mobility LLC 

characterizing the prior art negatively could narrow your claim scope



CARDIAQ V. NEOVASC

how to recover when someone tries to rip-off your invention



How the patent process works

Many people have questions about what happens when you file a patent, and when the patent will be issued. We have created this simple Patent Process Flowchart for you, if you are wondering about the patent process or what happens after you have filed a patent application.


profile-pic
Alan Tholkes

Thompson Patent Law Office does GREAT work!

Thompson Patent Law Office does GREAT work!