{"id":801,"date":"2021-02-11T10:11:03","date_gmt":"2021-02-11T10:11:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/?p=801"},"modified":"2022-08-31T10:00:57","modified_gmt":"2022-08-31T10:00:57","slug":"lqp-patentcast-sap-investpic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/lqp-patentcast-sap-investpic\/","title":{"rendered":"LQ PatentCast: SAP America V. Investpic"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"Podcast\"><iframe style=\"border: none;\" src=\"\/\/html5-player.libsyn.com\/embed\/episode\/id\/6872477\/height\/360\/width\/640\/theme\/standard\/autonext\/no\/thumbnail\/yes\/autoplay\/no\/preload\/no\/no_addthis\/no\/direction\/backward\/\" width=\"640\" height=\"360\" scrolling=\"no\" allowfullscreen=\"allowfullscreen\" data-dashlane-frameid=\"2674\"><\/iframe><\/div>\n<p><strong>Summary:<\/strong> The Federal Circuit burns off some of the fog surrounding software claims at Step 2 of the Alice inquiry.<\/p>\n<p>In this installment of the Post-Alice Software Series, the Federal Circuit burns off some of the fog surrounding software claims at Step 2 of the Alice inquiry.<\/p>\n<p>The case of SAP vs. Investpic appears to directly answer, for the first time, whether a claim can lack the \u201cinventive concept\u201d needed to survive Alice, even though the claims are \u201cgroundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant\u201d as well as non-obvious.<\/p>\n<p>Now we know that an \u201cinventive concept\u201d cannot be found in the non-abstract realm, e.g., the claimed improvement can\u2019t be an improvement to merely abstract \u201cmath.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Summary: The Federal Circuit burns off some of the fog surrounding software claims at Step 2 of the Alice inquiry. In this installment of the Post-Alice Software Series, the Federal Circuit burns off some of the fog surrounding software claims at Step 2 of the Alice inquiry. The case of SAP vs. Investpic appears to [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":1709,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-801","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lqp-patentcast"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/801","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=801"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/801\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":802,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/801\/revisions\/802"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1709"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=801"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=801"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=801"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}