Recent Articles from Wayne F. Reinke
In American Axle, the invention was directed to a method for manufacturing a shaft assembly of a driveline system, historically considered to be patentable subject matter. The first claim addressed included a step of turning a mass and stiffness of a liner. The tuning was qualified in that it was said to be a tuned […]
The Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2020 (the CASE Act) included a direction from Congress to create the Copyright Claims Board (the “CCB”), a three-member panel giving an option to resolve copyright disputes involving less than $30,000. The CCB is intended to be less complex than Federal Court and be operational by the […]
In Yangin Yu, Zhongxuan Zhang v. Apple Inc. (Fed. Cir. June 11, 2021), hereinafter “Yu v. Apple,” the Federal Circuit majority proves there is a serious problem with its § 101 jurisprudence, which has expanded to the point of swallowing at least § 112 and, to an extent, § 102 and § 103. In this article, we explore the […]
There is some concern in the patent-sphere about the CAFC conflating §101 (patentable subject matter) with §112 (issues with claim wording and/or support of claims in specification) and other considerations. There is no better example of this than the recently modified (twice) opinion of July 31, 2020 for American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco […]
In this update to my prior articles on the state of patentable subject matter in the wake of the Supreme Court Alice decision, CAFC decisions in 2019 identified as precedential and involving abstract ideas (computer-related inventions) are considered. The two-part Alice test for patentable subject matter starts by determining whether the claims are directed to […]
It has been about nine months since my last patentable subject matter (aka “Alice”) update, tracking cases and other important information in the wake of the Alice Supreme Court decision. Things continue to improve at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and with examination at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The two-part […]
About five months have gone by since my last update on the state of patentable subject matter after the 2014 Alice Supreme Court decision and its progeny. A number of important developments have taken place during this time, mostly positive in the sense of rebalancing the outcomes Alice patentable subject matter inquiries by courts. The […]
I have come across several smaller gaming companies that say they have never explored Intellectual Property (IP) protection. Typically, I respond with some examples of things they could be protecting. The reactions run the gamut from panic to interest to a glassy-eyed stare. This article will address the various types of IP protection that may […]
35 U.S.C. §101 states that “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” In the first part of the two-part test set out by the Supreme Court […]
For decades, computer-related inventions have survived various road blocks erected over time (statutory, case law, regulations and USPTO practice). When the latest road block came about and for some time afterward, i.e., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), prognosticators decried the death of computer-related patents. Briefly, the […]
Alice Corporation is the owner of several patents directed to mitigating, using a computer as a third-party intermediary, the risk that one of the parties to an agreed-upon financial exchange between two parties will fail to satisfy its obligation. CLS Bank (together with other defendants) operates a global network facilitating currency transactions. The method […]
The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided Bilski v. Kappos, involving a business method patent. Back in 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided In re Bilski, which affirmed a rejection of patent application claims to a method for managing or hedging risk.
- NYS Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics – Attorney misconduct: Opinion 22-164
- NYS Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics – Independently written bench book: Opinion 22-163
- Fourth Department – Suppression: People v. Saeli
- Second Circuit – RICO: Horn v. Medical Marijuana Inc.
- NYS Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics – Uncompensated interview: Opinion 22-159
- NYS Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics – Uncompensated guest speaker: Opinion 22-158
- Fourth Department – Negligent performance: Rosenthal v. Syracuse University, et al.
- Second Circuit – Visual Artists Rights Act: Kerson v. Vermont Law School Inc.
- NYS Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics – Former foreclosure referee: Opinion 22-157
- NYS Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics – College honorarium: Opinion 22-156
- Second Circuit – Reasonable accommodation: Tafolla v. Heilig
- Fourth Department – Labor Law: Primisch v. Peroxychem LLC
- Appeals court upholds Supreme Court ruling
- Assistant district attorney appointed City Court judge by Rochester mayor
- Murder conviction affirmed despite trial judge error
- NY appeals court upholds conviction in burglary case
- Federal lawsuit reinstated against jail officer over strip search, delayed release
- Hyzon to pay $25M penalty to settle alleged fraud charges by SEC
- NY appeals court reinstates lawsuit over contract to remove snow
- Fourth Department affirms $400K judgment in contract dispute