The latest info on what MIGHT BE happening soon with Alice 101 (as of 1/11/19):
As the IP press has reported, two senators are meeting with industry groups to discuss potential legislative amendments to (Alice) Section 101 as an alternative fix to the current patent eligibility jurisprudence. Clearly, (under Henry Schein v. Archer & White Sales, Inc. court case) the Supreme Court must intend to strike the judicial exceptions to patent eligibility—because they don’t appear in the (patent eligibility) statute—and it will be up to Congress to tell us what is patentable subject matter, and what is not.
Perhaps Congress can, in a bipartisan way, figure out and put in the text any limits on patenting anything under the sun made by man that is a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Of course, in SFOR's case it's not the eligibility of our patents that's the problem (our patents have been reinforced by USPTO) but patent infringement problems under Alice 101. Maybe Congress will fix that too.
As the IP press has reported, two senators are meeting with industry groups to discuss potential legislative amendments to (Alice) Section 101 as an alternative fix to the current patent eligibility jurisprudence. Clearly, (under Henry Schein v. Archer & White Sales, Inc. court case) the Supreme Court must intend to strike the judicial exceptions to patent eligibility—because they don’t appear in the (patent eligibility) statute—and it will be up to Congress to tell us what is patentable subject matter, and what is not.
Perhaps Congress can, in a bipartisan way, figure out and put in the text any limits on patenting anything under the sun made by man that is a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Of course, in SFOR's case it's not the eligibility of our patents that's the problem (our patents have been reinforced by USPTO) but patent infringement problems under Alice 101. Maybe Congress will fix that too.
2
