Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2349969888> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 60 of
60
with 100 items per page.
- W2349969888 abstract "In the wake of the Supreme Court’s revolution in § 101 jurisprudence, district courts have begun resolving questions of patent eligibility at an early stage in patent litigation, without evidence or formal claim construction. This chaotic new trend represents a departure from the test set forth in Mayo/Alice, which requires courts to determine whether a patent teaches an “inventive concept” or merely recites “conventional” structure — a determination that overlaps with the question of novelty often requires the resolution of significant factual issues. Courts have made a similar departure in the law of indefiniteness, unmooring the analysis from the perspective of the skilled artisan. This article contends that both eligibility and indefiniteness must be decided in context, as they long have been. Context demands that courts adopt the perspective of the skilled artisan, often taking evidence in the form of expert testimony. Particularly with respect to eligibility, it requires that courts assess the claimed invention as part of the field within which it arose. Thus, reading the prosecution history and the prior art will often be necessary. The current tendency among judges to decide these issues “in a vacuum” — absent prior art evidence and without the understanding of the skilled artisan — is rooted in a fear of overly preemptive patents and broad functional claiming. While these concerns are not without merit, current trends have gone much too far, and patents are often being held invalid on scant evidence. To restore balance in these inquiries, this article argues that courts must return to context-based decision-making. This article illustrates the conflicts within the Federal Circuit’s indefiniteness doctrine that wrongly preclude the use of expert testimony, and need to be resolved en banc. And it argues that, although the Mayo/Alice framework clearly indicates that eligibility doctrine rests on crucial questions of fact — questions usually inappropriate at the motion to dismiss stage — further procedural guidance is necessary to clarify how courts should decide eligibility properly. Judicial intervention comparable to Markman, which created so-called Markman hearings on claim construction and began a revolution in patent procedure, may be necessary in the eligibility context to clarify how (and when) courts are to decide eligibility, and what fact issues are relevant. In the absence of such guidance, it may be necessary for Congress to amend §§ 101 and 112 to clarify the contextual nature of these inquiries." @default.
- W2349969888 created "2016-06-24" @default.
- W2349969888 creator A5078012580 @default.
- W2349969888 date "2016-01-01" @default.
- W2349969888 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
- W2349969888 title "Resolving Eligibility and Indefiniteness in Proper Context: Applying Alice and Aristocrat" @default.
- W2349969888 doi "https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2765626" @default.
- W2349969888 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
- W2349969888 type Work @default.
- W2349969888 sameAs 2349969888 @default.
- W2349969888 citedByCount "0" @default.
- W2349969888 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W2349969888 hasAuthorship W2349969888A5078012580 @default.
- W2349969888 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
- W2349969888 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
- W2349969888 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
- W2349969888 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
- W2349969888 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
- W2349969888 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
- W2349969888 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
- W2349969888 hasConcept C34974158 @default.
- W2349969888 hasConcept C71043370 @default.
- W2349969888 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
- W2349969888 hasConceptScore W2349969888C144024400 @default.
- W2349969888 hasConceptScore W2349969888C166957645 @default.
- W2349969888 hasConceptScore W2349969888C17744445 @default.
- W2349969888 hasConceptScore W2349969888C190253527 @default.
- W2349969888 hasConceptScore W2349969888C199539241 @default.
- W2349969888 hasConceptScore W2349969888C2778272461 @default.
- W2349969888 hasConceptScore W2349969888C2779343474 @default.
- W2349969888 hasConceptScore W2349969888C34974158 @default.
- W2349969888 hasConceptScore W2349969888C71043370 @default.
- W2349969888 hasConceptScore W2349969888C95457728 @default.
- W2349969888 hasLocation W23499698881 @default.
- W2349969888 hasOpenAccess W2349969888 @default.
- W2349969888 hasPrimaryLocation W23499698881 @default.
- W2349969888 hasRelatedWork W127274808 @default.
- W2349969888 hasRelatedWork W1491261200 @default.
- W2349969888 hasRelatedWork W1516081523 @default.
- W2349969888 hasRelatedWork W1547663667 @default.
- W2349969888 hasRelatedWork W1567858014 @default.
- W2349969888 hasRelatedWork W1815604866 @default.
- W2349969888 hasRelatedWork W1928524579 @default.
- W2349969888 hasRelatedWork W194414014 @default.
- W2349969888 hasRelatedWork W2011378286 @default.
- W2349969888 hasRelatedWork W2086051535 @default.
- W2349969888 hasRelatedWork W2272224727 @default.
- W2349969888 hasRelatedWork W251841635 @default.
- W2349969888 hasRelatedWork W3121210647 @default.
- W2349969888 hasRelatedWork W3121568441 @default.
- W2349969888 hasRelatedWork W3121872426 @default.
- W2349969888 hasRelatedWork W3122774161 @default.
- W2349969888 hasRelatedWork W3154957571 @default.
- W2349969888 hasRelatedWork W45577744 @default.
- W2349969888 hasRelatedWork W829689891 @default.
- W2349969888 hasRelatedWork W86163828 @default.
- W2349969888 isParatext "false" @default.
- W2349969888 isRetracted "false" @default.
- W2349969888 magId "2349969888" @default.
- W2349969888 workType "article" @default.