Jul 26, 2012 most software patents today are written in functional terms. Roy schestowitz to technology companies, npes patent trolls are a drag on innovation, taxing them tens of billions of dollars every year while achieving no social purpose mark lemley and robin feldman. Preserving the architecture of the internet in the broadband era october 2000. Against this backdrop of disbelief and denial, i spoke with professor mark lemley on august 28, 2014. Fixing software patents by actually applying existing. This was highlighted in the recent this american life episode on patents, in which a software developer with a patent admittedthat he didnt even understand what his own patent said. Ive read short messages from him about his functional claiming article with him saying this is the way to get rid of. The economics of improvement in intellectual property law lemley 1996 draft 15 required is an inventive leap 55 some quantum of improvement over what has come before. This entry was posted on monday, september 22nd, 2014 at 14. In their new paper, titled a simple approach to setting reasonable royalties. Ip law and business magazine, top 50 under 45, 2008. Volume ii covers law, trademark law, and state intellectual property law protections. Patent scope and innovation in the software industry scholarship.
His contributions to legal scholarship focus on how the economics and technology of the internet affect patent law, law, and. Lemley recently released a new paper, arguing that the problem of software patents can be dealt with by properly applying the 1952 patent acts limitation on so called functional claiming. He is a preeminent scholar of intellectual property law and an accomplished litigator, and an expert on patents, traded secrets, antitrust, and constitutional law. Everything you need to know about software patents vox. Menell, forty years of wondering in the wilderness and no closer to the promised land. Software patent lawyers are increasingly writing patent claims in broad functional terms. I think alice is a real sea change on the patentable subject matter issue. Why a 40yearold scotus ruling against software patents. Functional claiming lemley draft 1 software patents and the return of functional claiming1 mark a. Software and internet patents with extremely broad claims seem to be everywhere these days. Stanford law school and notre dame law school downloads 330 97,319 citation 6.
Software patents and the return of functional claiming. Tan mau wus post yesterday on mark lemleys software patents and the return of functional claiming questions whether restricting software claims to disclosed implementations will really make a difference. Neukom professor of law at stanford university school of law. Most software patents today are written in functional terms. To the problem of overly broad patents, however, mark lemley has a solution.
In a recent article, software patents and the return of functional claiming, mark lemley has gone so far as to argue that a more assiduous application of 112f to functional language in software patent claims might be enough to address most contemporary objections to software patents with one fell swoop. Sure, moving forward, we have ideas about what needs to be in the disclosure, but you cannot add new matter to an application or issued patent, and software patents are now all about the technical disclosure. For example, the prominent patent scholar mark lemley has speculated that a majority of the software patents being litigated right now are invalid under alice. But congress should tread carefully in reforming that law to make sure that it preserves what works and doesnt end up creating more uncertainty. Bilskis superficial textualism and the missed opportunity to return patent law to its technology mooring. If perceived intent is the test, then be careful what you intend because if you step out from under the 112f. Cls bank, computer software patents, mark lemley, patent, patent eligibility, patentability, patentability requirements, patents, software patent, software patentability, software patents. Lemley2 commentators have observed for years that patents do less good and cause more harm in the software industry than in other industries such as pharmaceuticals. If perceived intent is the test, then be careful what you intend because if you step out from under.
How structural claim limitations can save software patents. Lemley and shapiro have written extensively about the interplay between patent issues and standardsetting, including the oftcited article patent holdup and royalty stacking. Patentable subject matter reform hearings before the senate judiciary committee, june 4, 2019 testimony of mark a. Using structural claim limitations to protect software patents. Director, program in law, science and technology 2004 present. Mark lemley has been trying to get software excluded for a long, long time.
Lemley, stanford law school the law of patentable subject matter is a mess. For a number of examples involving hundreds or thousands of patents covering a particular technology, see mark a. Lawyerlaw professor mark lemley has argued for years that, even as there are very clear problems with software patents, the answer is not to merely exclude software from being patentable. We recently came across a new paper written by noted scholars mark lemley and carl shapiro that we thought was worth passing along. Abstraction in software patents the john marshall institutional. Interviews with jurors after the verdict suggested they took samsungs total revenues and multiplied by an estimated profit margin. Mark lemley of stanford, in software patents and the return of functional claiming, suggests that many software claims are essentially functional claims, where a function is claimed instead of a structure, and that functional claims are responsible for many of the issues surrounding software claims.
Software patents and the return of functional claiming stanford. December 28, 2012 patent claim construction, enablement. Ive heard a lot of folks talk about how alice doesnt really use the word software so it doesnt. Volume i covers philosophical perspectives, trade secret law, and patent law. Software patents and the return of functional claiming by mark a. The leading literatures mark lemley, software patents and the return of functional claiming. Patent scope and innovation in the software industry by julie e. A sea change for software patent law practice center. Edward elgar publishing limited, cheltenham and northampton, ma, 2019 forthcoming stanford public law working paper. How the jury came up with the number is, of course, unknown.
Daily journal top 50 ip lawyers in california, 2008. Comment to ptop20120052request for comments and notice of. Dec, 2015 an alternative definition for software patents by allison a nd lemley is an invention that is completely embodied in software, even if the claims of the patent refer to a sy stem or article. Lee van pelt thanks to mark lemley for providing the. The economics of improvement in intellectual property law. This situation is common in the information technology sector of the economy. Lee van pelt thanks to mark lemley for providing the content. Dinusha mendis, mark lemley, and matthew rimmer, 3d printing and beyond. We thank kristen dahling and colleen chien for research. He points out that the inherent flexibility of computing hardware means that. Intellectual property in the new technological age. The results been a raft of lawsuits against companies making any products in this space. Intellectual property in the new technological age provides an indepth survey of the rapidly evolving field of intellectual property law.
If overly broad software claims could be either easily invalidated. Lemley is a professor at stanford law school and an expert on software patents. On the other hand, changing the ptos evaluation of software patents doesnt address. An alternative definition for software patents by allison a nd lemley is an invention that is completely embodied in software, even if the claims of the patent refer to a sy stem or article.
Oct 07, 2014 for example, the prominent patent scholar mark lemley has speculated that a majority of the software patents being litigated right now are invalid under alice. Patent scope and innovation in the software industry. Sep 25, 2012 it would be interesting if someone familiar with software patents looked at some of the recent software patent eligibility cases summarized on patentlyo in a table at the bottom of this post and discussed how the claims at issue would be interpreted under lemleys proposal. Put another way, patentees claim to own not a particular machine, or even a particular series of steps for achieving a goal, but the goal itself. Claims for patents often are written using functional, rather than structural, terms. Selected periodical articles patent law research guide. It is frequently argued that such claims are overbroad and unclear, and that the aggregation of such claims can result in innovationstifling patent thickets. Bilski, patent eligibility, business method patents, software patents. Intellectual property rights in frontier industries. Fixing software patents by actually applying existing patent law. On the other hand, changing the ptos evaluation of. Kappos, the supreme court declined calls to categorically exclude business methodsor any technologyfrom the patent law. Intellectual property expert mark lemley talks about the impact of court rulings on software patents and the tech industrys pressure on congress. Intellectual property in the new technological age 2018.
Lemley and others further argue that a problem with functional claiming in software patents is the uncertainty associated with the meaning and scope of the claims. Supreme court to rule on software patents infoworld. A discussion with mark lemley the way that many plaintiffs argue damages has always amazed me, and this shift to reasonable royalties at least somewhat vindicates my. Software patents and the return of functional claiming request pdf. Lex machina 1010 doyle street, suite 200 menlo park, ca 94025 phone. Colleen chien, patent trolls by the number point out activities of nonpracticing entities and the overbroad scopes of software patents as major sources of negative impact on innovations and propose a reform. As a result, it was close to impossible in the 1970s to get software patents.
Why a 40yearold scotus ruling against software patents still. It is now clear that the supreme courts decision in alice fundamentally changed the law and future of software patents, at least those already. On todays show, we talk with mark lemley, who has some ideas for fixing the patent mess. So its worth noting when a leading patent law scholar proposes a potential solution to the software patent problem, as mark lemley recently did in a new paper. Lemley3 the software patent cases stand as a testament to the ability of law to adapt to new and innovative concepts, while remaining true to basic principles. Bilskis superficial textualism and the missed opportunity to return patent law to its technology mooring, 63 stan. Intellectual property expert mark lemley talks about the impact of court rulings on software patents and the tech industrys pressure on congress for reform. Recent posts by simon phipps at infoworld and by mike masnick at techdirt have suggested that it would, calling lemleys proposal the software patent solution that will fix. Software patents and the return of functional claiming1 mark a. The open source community maintains an active voice of indignation when it comes to the harms flowing from bad software patents. This was highlighted in the recent this american life episode on patents, in which a software developer with a patent admitted that he didnt even understand what his own patent said. Lemley, software patents and the return of functional claiming, 20 wis.
1552 866 365 606 347 398 560 1588 703 1469 87 263 255 1579 257 711 452 1574 547 246 734 512 1184 877 43 779 24 347 588 1211 347 856 775 970