About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

81 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. Arguendo 1 (2012-2013)

handle is hein.journals/gwargu81 and id is 1 raw text is: Why Patentable Subject Matter Matters for Software Brian J. Love* ABSTRACT Increasingly, courts weary from years of arguing about the scope of patentable subject matter for software patents seem ready to throw in the towel. Rather than continue efforts to craft a test for determining when a software invention graduates from an abstract idea or mere algorithm into a patentable invention, several recent Federal Circuit opinions dismissively reject section 101 challenges as attacks that should be made instead under sections 102, 103, and 112. This short Essay criticizes this recent trend in patentable subject matter jurisprudence. Accused infringers look to section 101 for relief not because doing so is a convenient shortcut around more traditional checks on patentability, but rather precisely because traditional checks on patentability have proven to be woefully ineffective weapons against overbroad software patents. INTRODUCTION It's not hard to see why many think software patents are a scourge. Studies suggest that they encourage very little innovation,' impose a great deal of cost on innocent technology companies,2 and are almost * Assistant Professor, Santa Clara University School of Law. Thanks to Michael Risch for comments on an early draft, Bernard Chao for helpful discussions that spurred me to write this Essay, and Santa Clara University School of Law's Faculty Scholarship Support Fund. Disclosure: Earlier this year I consulted on a limited part- time basis as a Special Counsel with Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati ('WSGR). WSGR represented WildTangent, Inc. in Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, No. 09-CV- 06918 RGK (PLAx), 2010 WL 3360098 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2010), discussed infra. That representation ended before the case was appealed to the Federal Circuit and before I performed any work for the firm. The views expressed in this Essay are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of WSGR or WildTangent. 1 See, e.g., Stuart J.H. Graham et al., High Technology Entrepreneurs and the Patent System: Results of the 2008 Berkeley Patent Survey, 24 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1255, 1262, 1289-90 (2009) (finding in a survey of start-up companies that (1) first mover advantage, not patent protection, was the most important means to capture competitive advantage in the software industry; and (2) the majority of start-up companies in the software industry hold no patents at all). Consider also that the software industry flourished in the late 1980s and early 1990s despite the fact that software was not clearly patentable until the late 1990s. See Julie E. Cohen & Mark A. Lemley, Patent Scope and Innovation in the Software Industry, 89 CALIF. L. REV. 1, 8-11 (2001). 2 In an event study of accused infringers' stock prices following suit, Professor James Bessen et al. found that the average non-practicing entity (NPE) suit cost accused infringers $122 million. James Bessen et al., The Private and Social Costs of September 2012 Vol. 81 Arguendo

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most