37 CFR 42.301 - Definitions
| Cite as | 37 CFR 42.301 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
149 practice notes
-
Amendments to the Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
...in the payments industry may be necessary for those working on covered business method patent reviews. Another commenter suggests that 37 CFR 42.301(b) should be amended to reflect that both factors for determining a technological invention must not exist for a claim to be found to fail to ......
-
Secure Axcess, LLC v. PNC Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 2016-1353
...to this court unaccompanied by any regulation except one that, regarding this issue, merely incorporates the statutory language. 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). On the question thus presented, the panel opinion in this case adopts a resolution that soundly resolves an ambiguity in the statutory lang......
-
Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., No. 2014–1194.
...invention.” § 18(d)(2). The USPTO has by regulation promulgated its version of a definition of a “technological invention.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b). The parties disagree as to whether the invention in this case is such an excepted “technological invention.”Congress, in addition to the specifi......
-
Method Patent Exceptionalism
...149. AIA, Act. Pub. L. No. 112–29, § 18(d)(1), 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (codified as amended in scattered section of 35 U.S.C.). 150. 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a) (2012). 151. Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also id. at 1325 (“It might have been help......
Request a trial to view additional results
59 cases
-
Secure Axcess, LLC v. PNC Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 2016-1353
...to this court unaccompanied by any regulation except one that, regarding this issue, merely incorporates the statutory language. 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). On the question thus presented, the panel opinion in this case adopts a resolution that soundly resolves an ambiguity in the statutory lang......
-
Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., No. 2014–1194.
...invention.” § 18(d)(2). The USPTO has by regulation promulgated its version of a definition of a “technological invention.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b). The parties disagree as to whether the invention in this case is such an excepted “technological invention.”Congress, in addition to the specifi......
-
Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., Nos. 2015–1391
...for determining whether a patent is for a technological invention."). In Versata II, we examined the resulting regulation, 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b), which explains that a patent claims a technological invention if "the claimed subject matter as a whole recites a technological feature that is n......
-
American Express Co. v. Lunenfeld, CBM2014-00050
...the Decision to Institute, that the '451 patent is a covered business method as defined in § 18(a)(1)(E) of the America Invents Act and 37 C.F.R. § 42.301, because at least one claim of the '451 patent is directed to a covered business method. Dec. to Inst. 8-13. B. Constitutionality of Cov......
Request a trial to view additional results
88 firm's commentaries
-
Intellectual Property Law Year in Review - March 2018
...Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for determining what qualifies as a covered business method (CBM) patent under AIA § 18(d)(1) and 37 CFR 42.301(a) have not always been consistent (see, for example, IP Update, Vol. 20, No. 3; Vol. 19, No. 11; Vol. 19, No. 6; Vol. 19, No. 5; Vol. 19, No.......
-
In Supplemental Examination, Discretion Is the Better Part of Valor
...for CBM review because, in the PTAB’s view, the claimed credit card reward exchange reflected a “financial product or service.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). For patents not subject to CBM challenges, however, supplemental examination may yet have value. Signature’s patents would have fared di......
-
In Supplemental Examination, Discretion Is The Better Part Of Valor
...for CBM review because, in the PTAB's view, the claimed credit card reward exchange reflected a financial product or service. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). For patents not subject to CBM challenges, however, supplemental examination may yet have Signature's patents would have fared different......
-
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Issues Proposed Rules for Post-Issuance Patent Review under the America Invents Act
...for Covered Business Method Patents, 77 Fed. Reg. 7080, 7082 (to be codified as 37 C.F.R. § 42.302). 27 See id. (to be codified as 37 C.F.R. § 42.301). 28 See Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents – Definition of Technological Invention, 77 Fed. Reg. 7095, 7096 (Feb. 10, ......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
Method Patent Exceptionalism
...149. AIA, Act. Pub. L. No. 112–29, § 18(d)(1), 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (codified as amended in scattered section of 35 U.S.C.). 150. 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a) (2012). 151. Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also id. at 1325 (“It might have been help......