decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
The problem: actual - but which actual law? | 457 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
That's one thing I'm confused on: overruled vs held
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 10 2013 @ 08:50 PM EDT

The ruling that came from CLS Bank was the "en banc" review. This is the "entire bench" rather then "panel of three".

The district court ruled the patents touched on ineligible subject matter.

Ahh ... I think I see where the confusion occurred (I'm reviewing as I'm authoring my thoughts here).

I have the understanding that normally the "en banc" review would occur after the normal "panel of three".

After that, it appears the Federal Circuit decided to skip the normal "panel of three" review and jump straight to "en banc" - possibly due to the decision in Bilski.

So yea, it makes sense the original decision was held because there hadn't been a previous appeal which reversed that decision (which I was under the mistaken impression there had been).

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The problem: actual - but which actual law?
Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 03:10 AM EDT
There's never been a case about sticking a CD in a computer, true. But isn't
that supposedly true for EVERY case in front of a court? Otherwise they'd all be
disposed of by summary judgement?

All I'm trying to say is that this new law will hand software firms' lawyers a
peach of a defence on a plate.

"Our product is a CD. It's not patentable subject matter.

If it's not patentable subject matter, adding it to a computer cannot make a new
patentable machine".

Maybe it'll have to go to the Supreme Court, maybe not.

Or maybe those lawyers will use that same law to defend themselves -

"Our product is a CD. It's not patentable subject matter. We're an end user
- go after the CD manufacturers".

Whichever route they go down, this places the absurdity of software patents
front and centre in front of the court.

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )