You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> on 2011/09/26 19:13:50 UTC
Ultramercial v. Hulu and WildTangent
I realize many of you don't read court decisions for a living. This is an
important decision of the CAFC approving the patentability in the U.S. of
software and business methods for processes performed on the Internet. This
case relates to a process for presenting advertising and generating revenue
from clicks on ads. The case addresses only the 35 U.S.C. § 101
"patent-eligible subject matter" test, and leaves for other proceedings the
§ 102 (novelty), § 103 (obviousness) and § 112 (adequacy of specification)
tests.
http://inventivestep.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/10-1544.pdf
2011 U.S.App.LEXIS 19048
2011 WL 4090761
I'll be interested to hear your opinions about this case. I do not know if
it will be appealed.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
Cell: 707-478-8932
Apache Software Foundation, board member and counsel (www.apache.org)
Re: Ultramercial v. Hulu and WildTangent
Posted by Jonathan Feinstein <Jo...@KrasGrossLaw.com>.
An interesting decision. Thanks for pointing to it. What I find most interesting is that both Hulu and Youtube were dismissed from the case. That suggests that they settled. Given the seeming obviousness of the process that surprises me. The plaintiffs must not have been asking for much money. WildTangent, OTOH, seems to have missed their opportunity for a quick win. I doubt they will appeal since they must have known this line of attack was a long shot. As far as the impact of this decision on software, it merely restates in clear terms, what Bilski held more obliquely. Bad patents (and bad 'software' patents in particular) will need to be felled by other means. This, of course, means that patent litigation will remain an expensive blood sport.
Jonathan
On Sep 26, 2011, at 10:13 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> I realize many of you don't read court decisions for a living. This is an important decision of the CAFC approving the patentability in the U.S. of software and business methods for processes performed on the Internet. This case relates to a process for presenting advertising and generating revenue from clicks on ads. The case addresses only the 35 U.S.C. § 101 "patent-eligible subject matter" test, and leaves for other proceedings the § 102 (novelty), § 103 (obviousness) and § 112 (adequacy of specification) tests.
>
> http://inventivestep.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/10-1544.pdf
>
> 2011 U.S.App.LEXIS 19048
> 2011 WL 4090761
>
> I'll be interested to hear your opinions about this case. I do not know if it will be appealed.
>
> /Larry
>
>
> Lawrence Rosen
> Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
> 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
> Cell: 707-478-8932
> Apache Software Foundation, board member and counsel (www.apache.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org