Difference between revisions of "Cybersource v. Retail ruling by US CAFC on 16 Aug 2011"
(citation) |
(link) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{navbox}} | {{navbox}} | ||
| − | CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., No. 2009-1358 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2011) | + | CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., No. 2009-1358 ([[Fed. Cir.]] Aug. 16, 2011) |
==Math can be patentable== | ==Math can be patentable== | ||
Revision as of 09:41, 14 February 2012
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., No. 2009-1358 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2011)
Math can be patentable
- See also: Software is math
Noteworthy in this decision is that the judge said that math can be patentable if
as a practical matter, the use of a computer is required to perform the claimed method.
He goes on to justify this with reference to previous decisions
For example, in SiRF Tech., we found that claims to a “method for calculating an absolute position of a GPS receiver and an absolute time of reception of satellite signals” recited patent-eligible subject matter. 601 F.3d at 1331. The court noted that we were “not dealing with . . . a method that [could] be performed without a machine” and that there was “no evidence . . . that the calculations [could] be performed entirely in the human mind.” Id. at 1333. To the contrary, we found it was “clear that the methods at issue could not be performed without the use of a GPS receiver.” Id. at 1332.
External link
- [www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/09-1358.pdf The decision "09-1358"]
