BarbriSFCourseDetails
  1. keyboard_arrow_leftBack

Course Details

Course Information
  • smart_display Format

    On-Demand

  • signal_cellular_alt Difficulty Level

  • work Practice Area

    Patent

Date & Time
  • event Date

    Thursday, January 27, 2022

  • schedule Time

    1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT

  • timer Program Length

    90 minutes

Credit Information

  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.

$347.00
CLE
ALL

This CLE course will guide patent counsel on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. The panel will examine the recent USPTO guidance, recent case law, and the European Patent Office (EPO) guidance for computer-implemented inventions and EPO patentability. The panel will offer insight for leveraging the guidance and case law to get an invention patented.

Faculty

Michael L. Kiklis
Founder
Kiklis Law Firm, PLLC

Mr. Kiklis focuses on PTAB litigation as well as district court patent litigation. He also handles Federal Circuit appeals from his cases. With an extensive background in computer science, his technological focus is on software patent matters. Mr. Kiklis frequently handles high stakes matters, having been involved in several cases in which over $1 billion was at stake.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio
Stephen G. Kunin
Partner
Maier & Maier, PLLC

Mr. Kunin represents clients in post-grant patent proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. He also serves as an expert witness and consultant on patent policy, practice and procedure. During his tenure at the USPTO, he served in many executive positions, including as Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio

Description

The Federal Circuit has been routinely striking down purely functional claims for failing to recite patent-eligible subject matter. The Electric Power Group line of almost 20 cases is an example of the Federal Circuit finding functionally drafted claims as abstract.

When the USPTO announced its revised guidance for subject matter eligibility under Section 101 in 2019, it also issued a guidance document entitled "Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112." The document addresses whether claims directed to computer-implemented inventions should be considered purely functional or indefinite under Section 112 of the Patent Act.

The EPO published guidelines in late 2018 that address computer-implemented inventions. Under EPO guidelines, an essential part of claim drafting for computer-implemented inventions is analyzing whether a feature is technical. However, there continues to be uncertainty about the patent offices and the courts do not consistently apply the technical character requirement.

Many computer-related claims are drafted functionally and may fail to meet the requirements of Sections 101 and 112. Patent owners and their counsel must navigate the Federal Circuit case law and USPTO guidance on Sections 101 and 112 to protect their computer-related inventions effectively. Patent counsel interested in European patent protection must also understand the new EPO guidelines.

Listen as our authoritative panel of patent attorneys examines the patentability of computer-implemented inventions by reviewing the most critical and recent Federal Circuit cases, the USPTO guidelines, and PTAB decisions applying those guidelines. The panel will also discuss the new EPO guidance and patentability of computer-implemented inventions at the EPO. The panel will then provide practical advice for satisfying Sections 101 and 112 during prosecution or adversarial proceedings.

Outline

  1. Critical Federal Circuit Section 101 cases involving computer-related inventions
  2. USPTO's computer-implemented inventions guidance on Section 101
  3. Recent PTAB cases applying the new guidance
  4. USPTO's Section 112 guidance for computer-implemented inventions
  5. EPO guidance and patentability of computer-implemented inventions at EPO
  6. Suggestions for drafting claims to pass muster under Section 101 and avoid Section 112 pitfalls and for surviving patent-eligibility challenges

Benefits

The panel will review these and other priority issues:

  • What insight does the USPTO guidance provide for claim drafting for computer-implemented inventions?
  • How can the EPO guidelines for computer-implemented inventions guide patent counsel seeking patents for computer-implemented inventions in the U.S.?
  • What are best practices for patent counsel to demonstrate patentability?