Patenting Software

Author(s):  
Noam Shemtov

This chapter examines some key elements of patent protection for computer-implemented inventions, with particular emphasis on the patent eligibility of software-implemented inventions in the United States and European Patent Office. It begins with an overview of computer-implemented inventions in the United States, focusing on policy trends and judicial interpretation. It analyses the US Supreme Court ruling in Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l. and its effect on the landscape of software-related patents, before discussing computer-implemented inventions at the European Patent Office, highlighting trends and the development of case law. Finally, it considers the convergence of the current approaches in the United States and European Patent Office with respect to patenting of software.

2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-174
Author(s):  
Mark B. Wilson ◽  
Daniel Alge

Many jurisdictions, including the European Patent Office (EPO), have opposition proceedings in which an interested third party can challenge the validity of the claims of an issued patent. The United States Congress is considering legislation that would introduce opposition proceedings in the USA. This paper reviews the existing EPO and proposed US opposition procedures and provides practical suggestions for dealing with oppositions.


Author(s):  
Christoph Bezemek

This chapter assesses public insult, looking at the closely related question of ‘fighting words’ and the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire. While Chaplinsky’s ‘fighting words’ exception has withered in the United States, it had found a home in Europe where insult laws are widely accepted both by the European Court of Human Rights and in domestic jurisdictions. However, the approach of the European Court is structurally different, turning not on a narrowly defined categorical exception but upon case-by-case proportionality analysis of a kind that the US Supreme Court would eschew. Considering the question of insult to public officials, the chapter focuses again on structural differences in doctrine. Expanding the focus to include the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACtHPR), it shows that each proceeds on a rather different conception of ‘public figure’.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1986 ◽  
Vol 77 (5) ◽  
pp. 781-782
Author(s):  
KATHERINE K. CHRISTOFFEL ◽  
TOM CHRISTOFFEL

THE ISSUE There are an estimated 40 to 50 million handguns in the United States, with approximately 2 million more being manufactured annually1 (The New York Times, July 9, 1985, p 16). The high prevalence of handgun injury in the United States is unique in all the world and is increasing. Children are among the growing legions of US citizens harmed by the handgun epidemic.2 The effort to control handguns is focussed on developing laws to control their manufacture, importation, purchase, possession, and use. Opponents of these legal approaches claim that gun control endangers constitutional freedoms. When asked, the US Supreme court has consistently rejected that position in favor of the view that the Second Amendment protects a collective, not a personal, right to bear arms.3,4


Author(s):  
Markus Kuczera

In actions brought under Article 32(1)(i), the Court may exercise any power entrusted on the European Patent Office in accordance with Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012, including the rectification of the Register for unitary patent protection.


2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Liz Heffernan

The admissibility of unlawfully obtained evidence in criminal proceedings has generated controversy throughout the common law world. In the United States, there has been renewed debate in recent years over the propriety of the judicially-created exclusionary rule as a remedy for violations of the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. When defining the scope and purpose of the rule, the US Supreme Court has placed ever increasing emphasis on the likely deterrent effect which suppressing evidence will exert on law enforcement. This article explores the consequent restriction of the exclusionary rule evinced in the contemporary case law including United States v Herring in which the Supreme Court expanded the scope of the so-called "good faith" exception. In conclusion it offers reflection from the perspective of another common law country, Ireland, where the exclusion of unconstitutionally obtained evidence has been the subject of debate.


2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 261-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard L. Hasen

The increased polarization in the United States among the political branches and citizenry affects the selection, work, perception, and relative power of state and federal judges, including justices of the US Supreme Court. Polarization in the United States over the last few decades matters to the American judicial system in at least four ways. First, polarization affects judicial selection, whether the selection method is (sometimes partisan-based) elections or appointment by political actors. In times of greater polarization, governors and presidents who nominate judges, legislators who confirm judges, and voters who vote on judicial candidates are more apt to support or oppose judges on the basis of partisan affiliation or cues. Second, driven in part by selection mechanisms, polarization may be reflected in the decisions that judges make, especially on issues that divide people politically, such as abortion, guns, or affirmative action. The Supreme Court, for example, often divides along party and ideological lines in the most prominent and highly contested cases. Those ideological lines now overlap with party as we enter a period in which all the Court liberals have been appointed by Democratic presidents and all the Court conservatives have been appointed by Republican presidents. Third, increasingly polarized judicial decisions appear to be causing the public to view judges and judicial decision making (at least on the US Supreme Court) through a more partisan lens. Fourth, polarization may affect the separation of powers, by empowering courts against polarized legislative bodies sometimes paralyzed by gridlock. The review concludes by considering how increased polarization may interact with the judiciary and judicial branch going forward and by suggesting areas for future research.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 257-271
Author(s):  
Elizabeth R. Earle

This study examines the recent developments in the #MeToo and Time’s Up Movements in the United States and how these developments have been portrayed in the US media. Through examining examples of US media, this article shows the media’s portrayal of the movement as politicized and polarized changed and developed after the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court. The article argues that after Kavanaugh’s appointment, the media began to downplay the tensions of race and class in the #MeToo movement. Instead of focusing on tensions of race and class, the media shifted to focus on the polarization of #MeToo along political party lines.


2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 31
Author(s):  
Selma Maria Santos Moura ◽  
Sávio Ruan Sampaio De Sousa ◽  
Airton Mendes Conde Júnior

O jenipapo é uma árvore alta (10 a 15 metros), encontrada em regiões de clima tropical úmido, comum no nordeste brasileiro. Seu nome científico é Genipa americana L., jenipapo vem do Tupi-guarani jandipap, que significa fruto que serve para pintar. Apresenta caule reto, folhas verde-escuras, flores amarelo-ouro e o fruto na forma de baga ovoide, possui polpa marrom clara que envolve sementes no centro. Na alimentação humana, seu fruto é comestível ao natural e no preparo de doces, refrescos e vinho. É rico em ferro, vitaminas B1, B2, B5 e C, cálcio e hidratos de carbono. Na cultura popular têm indicações medicinais para o tratamento de afecções. Quando verde, o fruto fornece um suco azul muito utilizado como corante, transparente a princípio, o qual torna-se preto quando oxida, apresenta consistência do nanquim e no corpo, em contato com a pele, deixa manchas que desaparecem após uma semana ou mais, espontaneamente. O objetivo desta pesquisa foi realizar a prospecção tecnológica com relação à Genipa americana L., para apresentar uma visão geral sobre as tecnologias desenvolvidas relacionadas ao tema. Para isso realizou-se uma busca de patentes nas bases do European Patent Office, World Intellectual Property Organization, United States Patent and Trademark Office e no Instituto Nacional de Propriedade Industrial. Utilizando a palavra-chave Genipa americana L. foram registradas 88 patentes, quando acrescido à especificação corante encontrou-se 5 e nenhuma quando utilizou-se Genipa americana L. e célula. O Brasil registrou um número de patentes inferior ao encontrado nos USA e no Japão, sendo os anos de 2010, 2011 e 2015 os que apresentaram maior número. Ações integradas devem ser realizadas para estimular as instituições de fomento à pesquisa no intuito de viabilizar um ambiente propício à geração de inovações, fazendo do Brasil um país mais competitivo do ponto de vista tecnológico. https://doi.galoa.com.br/doi/10.17648/jibi-2448-0002-1-2-5174


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
khoiriazulhijah

AbstractPerbedaan sistem hukum perlindungan lingkup paten di berbagai Negara,tidak hanya mengimpor investasi baru namun juga menentukan proses transfer teknologi suatu Negara. Perlindungan yang meluas menyebabkan transfer teknologi tidak mudah walaupun kurangnya perlindungan karena pemilik paten mengalami kerugian.kedua perbedaan niat tersebut menghasilkan perlunya studi komperatif tentang cangkupan perlindungan paten di Negara-negara. Ada dua masalah yang harus dijajaki, pertama apa perbedaan dan kesamaan cakupan perlindungan paten dalam peraturan negara dan yang kedua bagaimana sistem hukum mempengaruhi kejadian yang berbeda? A.INTRODUCTIONPerkembangan Teknologi suatu Negara,tidak lepas dari aspek perlindungan hak paten yang berlaku pada Negara tersebut. Negara jepang sebagai contoh, adalah Negara yang dikenal paling maju teknologinya.Semula Negara ini banyak mencontoh teknologi Negara-negara Eropa dan Amerika, namun dalam perkembangan yang kita ketahui akhir-akhir ini justru jepanglah yang menjadi kiblat dari Negara-negara lain termasuk Eropa dan Amerika.B.CONTENT1.Perlindungan paten di Negara-Negara Eropa Konvensi Paten Eropa, Undang-Undang Paten Jerman, Amerika Serikat, dan Jepang, dalam makalah “Comparative Study on the Japanese, the United States and the European Patent Systems”, oleh Japan Patent Office Asia-Pacific Industrial Property Center di Jepang belum lama ini (tahun 2001), bila ditelaah banyak mengungkap persamaan/perbedaan perlindungan paten negara-negara tersebut. Beberapa pasal konvensi dan undang-undang negara dimaksud, memperkaya isi tulisan ini.C.CONCLUSIONPerlindungan paten baik bagi negara-negara Eropa yang mengikuti Konvensi Paten Eropa, Jepang maupun Indonesia memiliki persamaan dalam memberikan perlindungan paten berdasarkan prinsip first-to-file, yang berbeda dengan Amerika Serikat berdasarkan prinsip first-to-invent. Sekalipun Amerika Serikat menggunakan prinsip first-to-invent, tetapi Amerika Serikat juga mengatur syarat perlindungan sebagaimana negara-negara Eropa, Jepang dan Indonesia yang berupa penemuan baru, mengandung langkah inventif, dan dapat diterapkan dalam industri. D.DISCUSSIONIndonesia yang sekarang ini dalam undang-undangnya masih mengatur secara umum lingkup perlindungan hak paten, disarankan mengikuti prilaku hakim pengadilan Jepang yang mengadopsi doktrin file wrapper estoppel dan equivalent sebagaimana berlaku di Amerika Serikat. Hal ini didasarkan pertimbangan bahwa doktrin yang dimaksud memberikan keseimbangan pada perlindungan pemegang paten, di samping perlindungan kepentingan negara dalam proses alih teknologi. E.REFERENCE [1]O. M. Febriani and A. S. Putra, “Sistem Informasi Monitoring Inventori Barang Pada Balai Riset Standardisasi Industri Bandar Lampung,” J. Inform., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 90–98, 2014.[2]A. S. Putra, “Paperplain: Execution Fundamental Create Application With Borland Delphi 7.0 University Of Mitra Indonesia,” 2018.[3]A. S. Putra, “2018 Artikel Struktur Data, Audit Dan Jaringan Komputer,” 2018.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document