Androvett Legal Media and Marketing
2501 Oak Lawn Avenue  |  Suite 650  |  Dallas, Texas 75219
Tel: 214.559.4630  |  Fax: 214.559.0852


Androvett Blog

by Dave Moore at 12:00:00 am

http://www.androvett.com/clientuploads/sanderson.jpeg

One in seven people worldwide use Microsoft Office. Civilized free time is dominated by Netflix and Facebook. Many of our communications depend on smartphones.

Since modern society leans so heavily on software that operates those and other technological wonders, many had hoped that the U.S. Supreme Court would define what sort of software deserves legal patent protection when it decided Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank.

To some degree, it did just that.

“The Supreme Court’s ruling … confirms that United States patent laws will continue to protect investors who create truly innovative software,” Dallas patent litigation attorney Adam Sanderson told Texas Lawbook’s Jeff Bounds recently. In the case of Alice Corp., however, the Supreme Court determined that abstract ideas aren’t patentable, even if they involve the use of computers to help apply them. However, the court stopped short of defining what is patentable.

“Software presents a special challenge to courts because it has not always been easy to recognize when a software engineer has done enough to ‘transform’ a mere idea into a new and useful invention,” Sanderson, a partner at Dallas-based Reese Gordon Marketos, told Lawbook.

Since the question of what’s a truly innovative patent has yet to be answered, it’s likely the Supreme Court will face the question again.