AIPLA Submits Amicus Brief in Bilski Case, Arguing for Broad Patentable Subject Matter

Here is a Link to the AIPLA Brief in the Bilski case. My post on this case is found here.

This is from the AIPLA post on the case:

AIPLA on April 7, 2008, filed an amicus brief with the en banc Federal Circuit, arguing that it is improper to apply the subject matter categories at 35 U.S.C. §101 narrowly to require that a process claim must be implemented by an apparatus in order to be patent-eligible under Section 101. In re Bilski, en banc Fed. Cir., No. 2007-1130.
According to the brief, Section 101 broadly encompasses anything under the sun made by man, and is limited only by the judicially-developed exclusions for laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas. The brief maintains that this formulation provides a flexible rubric that promotes disclosure and adapts to yet unforeseen technologies, while retaining the safeguard against overbreadth in the traditional patentability requirements of novelty, non-obviousness, and sufficient disclosure to the public.

The Art of Networking, A Seattle Patent Litigator's Perspective from the 2008 AIPLA Mid-Winter Institute in Phoenix, Arizona

I left a brutally cold Seattle early Wednesday morning for Phoenix, looking for three specific things at this year's AIPLA Mid-Winter Institute: (1) some sunshine; (2) timely, relevant, and expert information on IP; and (3) a bounty of networking opportunities. So far, my quest for sunshine continues. It poured rain for about 15 minutes today, and the temperature hovered around 50 degrees all day today and yesteday, while the sun remains obscured by some high clouds as I write this post. As for timely, expert, and relevant information on IP, I think I may have learned more by scanning my RSS reader for the latest IP news. One thing that has not disappointed is the networking opportunity here at AIPLA. What a great organization for building relationships and staying in contact with clients and fellow lawyers from around the country. AIPLA is great at putting faces to names I've heard (or read) about and at providing an opportunity to discuss (and sometimes debate/argue) key issues affecting the practice of IP law in the US and abroad. One topic that has been on my mind and provided much fodder for networking discussions is the current case on review en banc before the CAFC, Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa, Inc. As many if you already know, this is a case that may completely overhaul the law of design patent infringement. I've been working diligently with a colleague, Kevin Kramer, at Pillsbury Winthrop in Washington DC, to suggest arguments and positions to take in a possible amicus brief on behalf of the Federal Circuit Bar Association. (Both Kevin and I sit on the amicus committee for the FCBA). For some of the questions up for en banc review in the CAFC's order, there appears to be consensus among many in the IP community, while on others (like whether to do away with the "point of novelty test" for design patent infringement) disagreements abound. In any event, I can't think of a better place to be at the moment than right here at AIPLA, where I can ask questions of those lawyers working in the "trenches" of patent law, who can share real-life, practical concerns with the case and the potential implications of a shift in the law for design patent infringement.

This year's AIPLA Mid-Winter Institute is at the Arizona Biltmore hotel, a hotel whose design was inspired by the great architect Frank Lloyd Wright. I will be golfing on Saturday at one of the hotel's two golf courses. AIPLA is having a tournament in the afternoon, just before I return to Seattle.

Last night, I ran into one of the most well known and respected patent lawyers in the country, Don Martens. Don will be playing golf with us on Saturday along with another member of patent law royalty, Douglas Henderson, whom I had the pleasure of meeting last night for the first time. I've had each verify their handicaps, so there will be no "sand-bagging" at Saturday's tournament.