Difference between revisions of "Cybersource v. Retail ruling by US CAFC on 16 Aug 2011"
(The case was heard by a three judge panel. Timothy B. Dyk wrote the opinion, Sharon Prost and William Curtis Bryson joined Dyk.) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''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) | ||
| + | |||
| + | The case was heard by a three judge panel. [[Timothy B. Dyk]] wrote the opinion, [[Sharon Prost]] and [[William Curtis Bryson]] joined Dyk. | ||
==Math can be patentable== | ==Math can be patentable== | ||
| Line 26: | Line 28: | ||
{{help|Can someone check the decision for the details?}} | {{help|Can someone check the decision for the details?}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[Pen and paper patents]] | ||
| + | * [[Software is math]] | ||
| + | * [[US CAFC]] | ||
==External link== | ==External link== | ||
Revision as of 01:28, 20 February 2014
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., No. 2009-1358 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2011)
The case was heard by a three judge panel. Timothy B. Dyk wrote the opinion, Sharon Prost and William Curtis Bryson joined Dyk.
Contents
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.
Does it invalidate software on a storage medium patents?
A lawyer, Andrew Oliver, commented that, until this decision, patent holders:
[...] could assert patents that cover computer readable media with instructions against software developers and companies that distribute software via physical media such as compact discs, servers, and other storage media. Now, many of those patents may be invalid [...][1]
Can you help? Can someone check the decision for the details?
