• 212-390-8741
  • info@patentagentone.com

What the Supreme Court Will Not Tell Us

What the Supreme Court Will Not Tell Us

Since the CAFC’s third decision in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC. which found the claims in that case patent ineligible, the CAFC has rendered only one decision in which the claims of a computer implemented invention were held to be patent eligible subject matter [DDR HOLDINGS LLV v HOTELS.COM].

The Apparent dichotomy between those rulings left many of us hoping that the Supreme Court would grant certiorari in the Ultramercial case. Those hopes were more like wishes, since the Supreme Court had already granted/vacated and remanded (GVR) twice after the two initial CAFC decisions were deemed unacceptable.

On June 29, 2015 the Supreme Court denied certiorari in the Ultramercial case, leaving the wish ungranted.

It is not all clear whether we should be wishing for a grant of certiorari inn the DDR HOLDINGS case or not. DDR HOLDINGS is the only post Alice V CLS Bank case dealing with “software” implemented claims that went in favor of the patentee. If the Supreme Court offers their insight, there may be no favorable § 101 decisions in the software field, although those insights might make the case law more uniform and easier to understand.

Careful what you wish for!

admin
admin

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.