Patent Eligibility of Software Innovations

(674 Ratings)

Produced on: May 08, 2017

Course Format On Demand Audio

Taught by

Categories:

Course Description

Time 60 minutes
Difficulty Advanced

Ever since the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice v. CLS Bank in 2014, the patent eligibility of software innovations has been in question. Now, more than two years after this far-reaching decision, is a good opportunity to look back at how the Federal courts and the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) have implemented the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence.

This course, taught by Brown Rudnick attorney Shahar Harel, will explore the Supreme Court’s analytical framework for determining whether a patent claim is eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This includes an exploration of the concepts of  “abstract ideas” and “significantly more than” an abstract idea with an eye to understanding when software innovations are eligible for patent protection.  


Learning Objectives:

  1. Develop an understanding of recent decisions and PTO guidance relating to when a patent claims an “abstract idea” under Section 101
  2. Develop an understanding of recent decisions and PTO guidance on when additional claim elements amount to “significantly more than” an abstract idea
  3. Find out which of the PTO’s different technology centers and art units issue the most Alice based rejections

Faculty

Shahar Harel

Brown Rudnick LLP

Shahar Harel is an associate in Brown Rudnick’s IP Litigation group.

He helps his clients identify, develop, protect and monetize their intellectual property. His practice focuses on patent litigation in diverse technologies such as medical devices, semiconductors, smartphones and pharmaceuticals in Federal courts, before the International Trade Commission, and at post-grant proceedings in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. His responsibilities include taking and defending depositions, arguing motions and at Markman hearings, drafting briefs and expert reports, and preparing witnesses for deposition and trial. A registered patent attorney, Mr. Harel also has experience prosecuting patents in the electromechanical arts, drafting and negotiating IP and software licensing agreements, and preparing non-infringement and invalidity opinions.

Mr. Harel leverages a distinct technical background in performing his legal work. Prior to attending law school, he was a doctoral student in computer science at Harvard University. While in school, he held research and engineering positions at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the Weizmann Institute of Science. Following his graduate technical education, Mr. Harel developed patented technology directed to root cause analysis of network and system failures for a profitable high-tech startup leading to its acquisition at over a quarter of a billion dollars.

Mr. Harel’s pro bono work includes securing protective orders for battered women and representing refugees seeking asylum.


Reviews

YA
Yekaterina A.

A good summary for patent practitioners.

RW
Robert W.

I liked the inclusion of specific cases and examples. The presenter did repeat himself a few times when going over cases/examples though.

BD
Brian D.

Good presentation for lawyers who do not do a large amount of patent law.

MH
Marjorie H.

Interesting presentation about an area of the law I knew very little about.

JW
Jack W.

Very interesting

MG
michael g.

Presenter made what I thought was going to be a dry and difficult subject quite interesting. Good job.

AE
Amy E.

Course had useful and timely information

KM
Kushal M.

one of the most productive lessons I've had. I'm a patent attorney but not a software patent attorney and this was hugely informative for me - thanks!

TF
THOMAS F.

I was impressed by how the presenter took us through a number of cases and elegantly explained each one. One of the best I seen on the issue of software patents and how to judge what may be patentable.

LG
Lourdes G.

Outstanding job with this complicated subject.

CB
Christopher B.

I thought the presenter did a very good job covering the case law. I do not practice at all in the area of patent law but he made it very understandable. Would recommend to others.

RD
Ralph D.

Feed issues, otherwise very good.

RG
Raymond G.

Course and speaker were good

DM
David B. M.

I particularly appreciated the case citations.

RH
Richard E H.

Very helpful presentation in a tough-to-explain subject area.

KX
Kevin X.

excellent job. not the easiest topic to dive into.

Load More

$59

$ 59 Intellectual Property Law and Patent Law In Stock

Accreditation

Get Unlimited Access to Lawline Courses

Unlimited CLE Subscription gives you access to take almost any course from our catalog and earn as much CLE credit as you need.