The item you have requested is not currently available in English and you have been redirected to the next available page. You may use your browser's back button to return to the item you were viewing.
Country desks feature Dentons lawyers in one jurisdiction with a particular focus or experience in another jurisdiction.
Learn more about our Canada capabilities
Learn more about our United States capabilities
Learn more about our Latin America and the Caribbean capabilities
Learn more about our Europe capabilities
Learn more about our United Kingdom capabilities
Learn more about our Central and Eastern Europe capabilities
Learn more about our Russia, CIS and the Caucasus capabilities
Learn more about our Africa capabilities
Learn more about our Middle East capabilities
Learn more about our Central Asia capabilities
Learn more about our China capabilities
Learn more about our Asia Pacific capabilities
Learn more about our Australia capabilities
At Dentons, we bring together top tier talent found at the intersection of geography, industry knowledge and substantive legal expertise. Start by clicking here
Dentons ranked #1 patent prosecution firm in the US
Juristat ranked Dentons number one on its 2017 list of the top 100 patent prosecution law firms, a jump from 16th place last year.
Court clamps down on ‘smash and grab’
Akin Akinbode of Dentons discusses key cases that provide lessons in respect of the payment process. Smash and grab approaches will not always work, they warn.
Using loyalty programs as a promotional strategy in Colombia
The Superintendency of Industry and Commerce (SIC) recently defined the rules applicable to loyalty programs in Colombia.
The naked truth: Why your supply chain could leave you exposed
If you are a business owner dealing with suppliers, you are potentially at risk of penalty for corruption related offences. While the response of countries to corruption offences differs around the world, most countries consider such conduct to be unacceptable, and in most cases illegal.
Saudi Arabia Update - January 2017
Welcome to our monthly update which provides a recap of recent legal developments, including finance and capital market developments, as well as updates on new legislation in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Starting your career as a student at Dentons exposes you to a world of experience and opportunities
With 125+ locations in 50+ countries, Dentons is home to top-tier talent that is found at the intersection of geography, industry knowledge and substantive legal experience. Working with Dentons, you will have the opportunity to learn from the best lawyers in the industry at the largest law firm in the world.
Dentons plays a role in 4 of Lexpert's top 10 legal deals in Canada for 2016
Dentons is proud to congratulate our lawyers who played an instrumental role in the four deals included as part of Lexpert’s Top 10 Deals for 2016.
Dentons reinforces its arbitration presence in Germany
Global law firm Dentons has expanded its International Arbitration practice in Germany with the recruitment of US-qualified partner Amy C. Kläsener.
Dentons hosts exclusive dinner with Canada's 22nd Prime Minister, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Dentons' Middle East partners hosted a client dinner on 26 January 2017 with The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Canada's 22nd Prime Minister.
The US Supreme Court has maintained its solidarity with yet another 9-0 patent decision in Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank1, holding that Alice's patent claims directed towards mitigation of settlement risk were patent-ineligible subject matter. The Court criticized the claims, finding that they merely required generic computer implementation of an abstract idea.
The representative claim was directed towards a method of mitigating risk and required four discrete steps: 1) creation of shadow credit and debit records; 2) obtaining a balance for the shadow records; 3) adjustment of shadow records when transactions requiring an exchange obligation occurred; and 4) instructing exchanges of credits or debits based on the adjustments. Additional claims were directed toward computer systems to carry out the described method and a computer readable medium containing program code to perform the described method. All claims were deemed patent-ineligible subject matter.
The Court made clear that "an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept."2 Rather, it is the failure to transform an abstract idea that renders an invention patent-ineligible. The Court likened abstract ideas to building blocks; claims directed towards the building blocks are not patentable, but inventions that integrate the building blocks into something more are patent-eligible.
Applying a test from Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U. S. ___ (2012), the Supreme Court laid out a framework for patent-eligibility in a two-part test: Are the claims at issue directed towards a patent-ineligible concept? And, if so, is there an element or combination of elements that is "sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself [?]"3 Here, the Court found that the claims on their face were drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk and that the concept of intermediated settlement fell "squarely within the realm of 'abstract ideas.'"4 The Court then walked through its prior patent eligibility cases - Mayo, Benson, Flook, Diehr, and Bilski - describing how each of those cases was decided on the second prong of the inquiry. A summary of the analysis of this case law in shown here:
Diehr was the only cited precedent having patent-eligible subject matter because the claims applied an abstract idea to improve an existing technological process. The Court relied on the remaining cases to show that the use of a computer cannot turn an otherwise patent-ineligible abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. The Court concluded that the claims at issue did nothing more than instruct a computer to apply an abstract idea of intermediated settlement using a generic computer. Each of the claim steps simply required a generic computer to perform well known, generic functions, which did not transform the abstract idea into something patent-eligible.
This decision provides litigants additional ammunition to attack computer implemented claims. Those asserting computer-implemented or method claims need to be prepared for the attack by identifying why the computer is integral to the purpose of the invention and explaining how an abstract idea is being used to build something more in the claims. However, while the decision seems fairly far reaching, there still may be patentable space in this arena. There still may be hope for claims directed to computer implemented inventions, where the claims are drafted in a manner that recites how the computer is integral to achieving the purpose of the invention rather than just implementing an abstract idea.
The URL of this tweet is below. Copy it to easily share with friends.
Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more