‘claims in a software patent were deemed to be patent eligible’

‘http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/05/13/federal-circuit-says-software-patent-claims-not-abstract-are-patent-eligible/id=69147/?utm_source=Website+Subscribers+%28RSS%29&utm_campaign=ee321d3e55-Daily_RSS_Feed_With_Calendar&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_98774de295-ee321d3e55-72165381

‘claims in a software patent were deemed to be patent eligible’

We applaud the court for its decision to reverse the 101 based invalidation. Some courts have become far too restrictive and weak on property rights for inventors. Patents are simply too hard, expensive, and lengthy to get and enforce. The courts as judge Michel has said do seem to be struggling with patentability, which to this court’s credit they readily admit.

We believe the best course when doubt creeps in is to always return to the Constitution and the fundamental natural and common law rights of inventors it sought to acknowledge and protect. Stare Decisis should never be forgotten and faithfully adhered to. The true test and principal considerations for patentability, as in the statute, should always be 1) is the invention new,  and 2) is it useful, as recited in the Constitution. Secondary questions which seem to be giving the courts so much pause, such as abstraction, should only be secondary questions or tests at most.

For our position and the changes we advocate to truly reform the patent system, or to join our effort, please visit us at https://aminventorsforjustice.wordpress.com/category/our-position/
or, contact us at tifj@mail.com