Wednesday, April 18, 2018

The "do it on a computer" process pieces -- supposedly not patentable, but defendants are still struggling with discovery expenses


Electronic Frontier Foundation has an essay in its “stupid patent of the month” series, on the Alice v. CLS  Bank case, decided in June 2014, when the Supreme Court ruled that you can’t patent an abstract “do it on a computer” process.  (Or maybe, do it on a mobile phone?)   
  
Is this the “Alice the Toothpick” case for plumbers?  It had to do with trolls attacking electronic tokens (the “838 patent”)  or e-money circulating in e-commerce (not to be confused with true digital currencies). 
  
   
But Joe Mullin points out that a new case “Berkheimer v. HP” may slow down the easy defense claimed by defendants in these cases and require more money spent on discovery, in cases which the defendants will eventually win.

No comments: