This blog has previously covered the division of authority concerning how to interpret “without authorization” and “exceed authorized access” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 USC § 1030. Does the CFAA merely prohibit logging in to a system one is not authorized to access, or does the CFAA impose liability on those who […]
Archive | February, 2013
Functional Language Can Have Patentable Weight
The Federal Circuit has held that functional language in a software claim should be given patentable weight. In re Jasinski, No. 2012-1482 (Feb. 15, 2013). Accordingly, the Court reversed the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s rejection of claims as allegedly anticipated. If applied to claims in other software patents and patent applications, this decision, although […]
Means-Plus-Function Claims Indefinite Without Supporting Algorithm
If a claimed means requires programming to carry out a specified function, then a patent specification must disclose an algorithm to support the claimed means. Absent such disclosure, means-plus-function claim elements are indefinite, and render a patent claim invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, according to the court in Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola Inc., No. […]
“Substantially Centered” Not Indefinite in Patent Claim
By Charles Bieneman on February 2, 2013 in Indefiniteness, Litigation, Section 112, Software Patents
The phrase “substantially centered” does not render a patent claim indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, according to the court in the ongoing Apple-Samsung patent litigation. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK (Jan 29, 2013, N.D. Cal.). At issue was claim 50 of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,163 (reproduced in full at the end of […]