{"id":41,"date":"2019-09-20T01:36:22","date_gmt":"2019-09-20T01:36:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/hlflegal.com\/?p=41"},"modified":"2023-03-18T01:36:50","modified_gmt":"2023-03-18T01:36:50","slug":"is-the-state-of-section-101-in-complete-disarray","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hlflegal.com\/?p=41","title":{"rendered":"Is the State of Section 101 in \u201cComplete Disarray?\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>That\u2019s what Trading Technologies International, Inc. contends in its recent\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/19\/19-353\/115872\/20190916133453445_Petition.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Petition for Certiorari<\/a>\u00a0to the Supreme Court. Well, Trading Technologies technically argues that the\u00a0<i>Federal Circuit\u2019s jurisprudence<\/i>\u00a0on patent eligibility is in \u201ccomplete disarray,\u201d stating that \u201c[w]hile one line of Federal Circuit decisions holds computer-implemented inventions to be ineligible if they do not make hardware-like improvements to computers\u2019 basic functions, another line holds the opposite.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The patents at issue in this case (<a href=\"https:\/\/pdfpiw.uspto.gov\/.piw?PageNum=0&amp;docid=07904374&amp;IDKey=4C55801F53BC%0D%0A&amp;HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526d%3DPALL%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsrchnum.htm%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526s1%3D7904374.PN.%2526OS%3DPN%2F7904374%2526RS%3DPN%2F7904374\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">US7904374<\/a>,\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/pdfpiw.uspto.gov\/.piw?PageNum=0&amp;docid=07212999&amp;IDKey=73BEA01F87D6%0D%0A&amp;HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526d%3DPALL%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsrchnum.htm%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526s1%3D7212999.PN.%2526OS%3DPN%2F7212999%2526RS%3DPN%2F7212999\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">US7212999<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/pdfpiw.uspto.gov\/.piw?PageNum=0&amp;docid=07533056&amp;IDKey=56419719A56E%0D%0A&amp;HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526d%3DPALL%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsrchnum.htm%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526s1%3D7533056.PN.%2526OS%3DPN%2F7533056%2526RS%3DPN%2F7533056\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">US7533056<\/a>) generally relate to the graphical user interfaces (GUIs) used by professional stock market traders \u2013 interfaces that allegedly improve the accuracy and speed of communicating offers and bids in a complex stock market environment. There is no allegation that the interfaces of these patents make \u201chardware-like improvements\u201d to the computer \u2013 e.g., they do\u00a0<i>not<\/i>\u00a0cause the computer to operate faster or more efficiently. Rather, the inventions are focused on user interaction, thereby improving the &#8220;user-directed functionality.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The two questions presented are thus:<\/p>\n<p>1. Whether computer-implemented inventions that provide useful user functionality but do not improve the basic functions of the computer itself are categorically ineligible for patent protection.<\/p>\n<p>2. Whether the Court should overrule its precedents recognizing the \u201cabstract idea\u201d exception to patent eligibility under the Patent Act of 1952.<\/p>\n<p>We will continue to monitor this case and provide updates as they become available.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>That\u2019s what Trading Technologies International, Inc. contends in its recent\u00a0Petition for Certiorari\u00a0to the Supreme Court. Well, Trading Technologies technically argues that the\u00a0Federal Circuit\u2019s jurisprudence\u00a0on patent eligibility is in \u201ccomplete disarray,\u201d stating that \u201c[w]hile one line of Federal Circuit decisions holds computer-implemented inventions to be ineligible if they do not make hardware-like improvements to computers\u2019 basic  [&#8230;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-41","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"aioseo_notices":[],"featured_image_src":null,"featured_image_src_square":null,"author_info":{"display_name":"Benjamin M. Hanrahan","author_link":"https:\/\/hlflegal.com\/?author=1"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hlflegal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hlflegal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hlflegal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hlflegal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hlflegal.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=41"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/hlflegal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hlflegal.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=41"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hlflegal.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=41"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hlflegal.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=41"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}