What do you think?
Rate this book
Software Patents
THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of 172 decisions of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that analyze and discuss issues surrounding software patents. The selection of decisions spans from 2004 to the date of publication.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC v. International Trade Commission, (Fed. Cir. 2016), overturns the lower court ruling that infringing digital goods are not subject to the Tariff Act if imported electronically. Section 337 of the Tariff Act does not determine infringement; its purpose is to regulate unfair competition by infringing imports. It is not "regulation of the Internet" to exclude infringing digital goods. ClearCorrect Operating, LLC, ibid.
The patents at issue in Trustees of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec, 811 F. 3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) involve applying data analytics techniques to computer security to detect and block malware. The claims cover "media, systems, and methods for detecting and classifying anomalous program executions." Each claim in a patent is presumptively different in scope. The district court incorrectly construed the term "anomalous" in two patents by requiring the model of normal computer usage be built only with "typical, attack free data." Dependent claims are presumed to be narrower than the independent claims on which they depend. Construing the independent claim to exclude material covered by the dependent claim would be inconsistent. Trustees of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec, ibid.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC v. International Trade Commission, (Fed. Cir. 2016), overturns the lower court ruling that infringing digital goods are not subject to the Tariff Act if imported electronically. Section 337 of the Tariff Act does not determine infringement; its purpose is to regulate unfair competition by infringing imports. It is not "regulation of the Internet" to exclude infringing digital goods. ClearCorrect Operating, LLC, ibid.
The patents at issue in Trustees of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec, 811 F. 3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) involve applying data analytics techniques to computer security to detect and block malware. The claims cover "media, systems, and methods for detecting and classifying anomalous program executions." Each claim in a patent is presumptively different in scope. The district court incorrectly construed the term "anomalous" in two patents by requiring the model of normal computer usage be built only with "typical, attack free data." Dependent claims are presumed to be narrower than the independent claims on which they depend. Construing the independent claim to exclude material covered by the dependent claim would be inconsistent. Trustees of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec, ibid.
Kindle Edition
First published December 10, 2011
2 people are currently reading
5 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
No one has reviewed this book yet.