The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2014 ruling in Alice v. CLS Bank made life harder for patent infringement plaintiffs by bringing patent eligibility requirements to the fore. Alice has been a mighty cudgel for patent defendants, who have wielded the ruling in case after case to invalidate patents that courts found too abstract or insufficiently innovative under Section 101 of the Patent Act.
Last November, in Ultramercial v. WildTangent, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit made patent plaintiffs’ life even harder. But if Ultramercial’s lawyers at McKool Smith get their way, the case could eventually offer them more breathing room.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
