ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!
Difference between revisions of "Alice v. CLS Bank (2012, USA)"
(→Deadline for the en banc hearing: * The en banc order says to see Rules of Practice, Rule 29, and that rule's "practice notes" say to see Rule 31(a), which says "''In an appeal from a court, the) |
(fuller name, add links to org pages) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | '''CLS Bank | + | '''CLS Bank International v. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd.''' is a patent dispute which raises questions of whether (or when) software can be [[patentable subject matter]]. This is thus one of the rare patent disputes that could create important case law. |
==Amicus briefs for CAFC en banc== | ==Amicus briefs for CAFC en banc== | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
The following are the 18 briefs listed by [[Patently-O]] on 19 December with the comment that "briefing continues" and that the brief from Alice and those supporting Alice are due in January 2013. I've read conflicting information about the deadlines (discussed below). | The following are the 18 briefs listed by [[Patently-O]] on 19 December with the comment that "briefing continues" and that the brief from Alice and those supporting Alice are due in January 2013. I've read conflicting information about the deadlines (discussed below). | ||
| − | # [http://www.patentlyo.com/bsa-software-alliance--iso-cls.pdf Business Software Alliance] | + | # [http://www.patentlyo.com/bsa-software-alliance--iso-cls.pdf Business Software Alliance] (See also: [[Business Software Alliance]]) |
| − | # [http://www.patentlyo.com/files/eff--iso-cls.pdf EFF] | + | # [http://www.patentlyo.com/files/eff--iso-cls.pdf EFF] (See also: [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]]) |
| − | # [http://www.patentlyo.com/ccia--iso-cls.pdf CCIA] | + | # [http://www.patentlyo.com/ccia--iso-cls.pdf CCIA] (See also: [[CCIA]]) |
# [http://www.patentlyo.com/clearing-house-assn--iso-cls.pdf Clearing House Ass'n] | # [http://www.patentlyo.com/clearing-house-assn--iso-cls.pdf Clearing House Ass'n] | ||
| − | # [http://www.patentlyo.com/google-et-al.--iso-cls.pdf Google et al.] | + | # [http://www.patentlyo.com/google-et-al.--iso-cls.pdf Google et al.] (See also: [[Google]]) |
# [http://www.patentlyo.com/stites-amicus-brief.pdf Stites] | # [http://www.patentlyo.com/stites-amicus-brief.pdf Stites] | ||
# [http://www.patentlyo.com/british-airways-et-al--iso-neither-party.pdf British Airways] | # [http://www.patentlyo.com/british-airways-et-al--iso-neither-party.pdf British Airways] | ||
# [http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/Profs_20Hollaar_20_26amp_3B_20Trzyna--ISO_20Neither_20Party.pdf Profs Hollaar & Trzyna] | # [http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/Profs_20Hollaar_20_26amp_3B_20Trzyna--ISO_20Neither_20Party.pdf Profs Hollaar & Trzyna] | ||
# [http://www.patentlyo.com/juhasz-law-firm--iso-neither-party.pdf Juhasz law firm] | # [http://www.patentlyo.com/juhasz-law-firm--iso-neither-party.pdf Juhasz law firm] | ||
| − | # [http://www.patentlyo.com/koninklijke-philips--iso-neither-party.pdf Philips] | + | # [http://www.patentlyo.com/koninklijke-philips--iso-neither-party.pdf Philips] (See also: [[Philips]]) |
# [http://www.patentlyo.com/internet-retailers--iso-neither-party.pdf Internet Retailers] | # [http://www.patentlyo.com/internet-retailers--iso-neither-party.pdf Internet Retailers] | ||
# [http://www.patentlyo.com/ip-owners-assn--iso-neither-party.pdf IP Owners Ass'n] | # [http://www.patentlyo.com/ip-owners-assn--iso-neither-party.pdf IP Owners Ass'n] | ||
| − | # [http://www.patentlyo.com/cls-bank_v_alice_usa-amicus-iso-neither-party.pdf USA govt.] | + | # [http://www.patentlyo.com/cls-bank_v_alice_usa-amicus-iso-neither-party.pdf USA govt.] (See also: [[US government]]) |
# [http://www.patentlyo.com/sigram-schindler--iso-neither-party.pdf Sigram Schindler] | # [http://www.patentlyo.com/sigram-schindler--iso-neither-party.pdf Sigram Schindler] | ||
# [http://www.patentlyo.com/ny-ip-law-assn--iso-neither-party.pdf NY IP Law Ass'n] | # [http://www.patentlyo.com/ny-ip-law-assn--iso-neither-party.pdf NY IP Law Ass'n] | ||
# [http://www.patentlyo.com/ip-law-assn-of-chicago--iso-neither-party.pdf IP Law Ass'n of Chicago] | # [http://www.patentlyo.com/ip-law-assn-of-chicago--iso-neither-party.pdf IP Law Ass'n of Chicago] | ||
# [http://www.patentlyo.com/conejo-valley-bar-assn--iso-neither-party.pdf Conejo Valley Bar Ass'n] | # [http://www.patentlyo.com/conejo-valley-bar-assn--iso-neither-party.pdf Conejo Valley Bar Ass'n] | ||
| − | # [http://www.patentlyo.com/ibm--iso-neither-party.pdf IBM] | + | # [http://www.patentlyo.com/ibm--iso-neither-party.pdf IBM] (See also: [[IBM]]) |
===Deadline for the en banc hearing=== | ===Deadline for the en banc hearing=== | ||
Revision as of 20:24, 10 January 2013
CLS Bank International v. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. is a patent dispute which raises questions of whether (or when) software can be patentable subject matter. This is thus one of the rare patent disputes that could create important case law.
Contents
Amicus briefs for CAFC en banc
The following are the 18 briefs listed by Patently-O on 19 December with the comment that "briefing continues" and that the brief from Alice and those supporting Alice are due in January 2013. I've read conflicting information about the deadlines (discussed below).
- Business Software Alliance (See also: Business Software Alliance)
- EFF (See also: Electronic Frontier Foundation)
- CCIA (See also: CCIA)
- Clearing House Ass'n
- Google et al. (See also: Google)
- Stites
- British Airways
- Profs Hollaar & Trzyna
- Juhasz law firm
- Philips (See also: Philips)
- Internet Retailers
- IP Owners Ass'n
- USA govt. (See also: US government)
- Sigram Schindler
- NY IP Law Ass'n
- IP Law Ass'n of Chicago
- Conejo Valley Bar Ass'n
- IBM (See also: IBM)
Deadline for the en banc hearing
Can someone help reconcile these conflicting sources of information on the deadline for filing an amicus brief?
- A lawyer told me the deadline was 45 days after the en banc order, which would make the deadline 22 Nov 2012
- The en banc order says to see Rules of Practice, Rule 29, and that rule's "practice notes" say to see Rule 31(a), which says "In an appeal from a court, the appellant must serve and file its initial brief within 60 days after docketing.", which would be 9 December 2012 (if "docketing" happens on the day of the en banc order).
- But the en banc order was 9 Oct and yet US govt filed their brief on 14 Dec, and Patently-O said on 19 Dec that "briefing continues"
So what was the deadline? Or is it still open??
Timeline
Newest first, dates as YYYY-MM-DD:
- 2012-11-22: Deadline for submitting amicus brief for the en banc rehearing (right? 45 days after the en banc order)
- 2012-10-09: CAFC vacates own 9 July opinion and agrees to rehear case en banc
- 2012-07-09: CAFC publishes opinion in this appeal ("panel decision")
- 201?-??-??: Appeal filed to CAFC; granted
- 2011-03-09: District court enters final judgement
- 2010-02-02: CAFC denies petition for interlocutory appeal
External links
Newest first...
- CLS Bank v. Alice Corp: Software Patentability On the Briefs, 19 Dec 2012
- Patenting Software: Obama Administration Argues “Sometimes”, 17 Dec 2012 (on the amicus brief of the US govt.)
- Federal Circuit To Announce Whether Software is Patentable?: En Banc Rehearing on Section 101 Issues, 9 Oct 2012
- CLS Bank v. Alice Corp: Patenting Software Ideas, 7 Sep 2012
- Director Kappos: Some Thoughts on Patentability, 4 Aug 2012
- Ongoing Debate: Is Software Patentable?, 27 Jul 2012
- CLS Bank v. Alice: The "Nothing More Than" Limitation on Abstract Ideas, 10 July 2012
