liibulletin-ny

Special project: Internet Law   Business Method Patents     • Introduction     • Issues & short answers     • Previous state of the law     • Discussion     • Authorities cited

The Internet Business Method Patent Endnotes 1. State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, 149 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 2. Hotel Security Checking Co. v. Lorraine Co., 160 F. 467, 469 (2d Cir. 1908) 3. State Street, 149 F.3d at 1370 4. Id. 149 F.3d at 1375 5. Thomas R. Makin, Hotel Checking: You Can Check Out Any Time You Want, But Can You Ever Leave? The Patenting of Business Methods, 24 COLUM-VLA J.L. & ARTS 93, 94 (Fall 2000). 6. State Street, 149 F.3d at 1375 7. William D. Wiese, Death of a Myth: The Patenting of Internet Business Models After State Street Bank, 4 MARQ. INTELL. PROP. L. REV.17, 17 (2000). 8. USPTO White Paper - Automated Financial or Management Data Processing Methods (Business Methods), available at www.uspto.gov/web/menu/busmethp/index.html. 9. Id. 10. Wiese, supra note 7, at 19. 11. Id. 12. U.S. CONST. ART. I § 8. 13. 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2) (2001): Contents and term of patent; provisional rights. 14. 35 U.S.C. § 112 (2001): Specification. 15. Nicole-Marie Slayton, Internet Business Model Patents: An Obvious Incentive to Reform the United States Patent and Trademark Office, 21 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 123, 5 (2000). 16. 35 U.S.C. § 101 (2001). 17. Id. 18. Id. 19. 35 U.S.C. § 103 (2001). 20. 35 U.S.C. § 112 (2001): Specification. 21. 35 U.S.C. § 101 (2001). 22. In re Sune Bergstrom and Jan Sjovall, 427 F.2d 1394, 1401 (C.C.P.A. 1970). 23. In re Georges Jolles, 628 F.2d 1322, 1326 (C.C.P.A. 1980). 24. 35 U.S.C. § 112: Specification. 25. Rinaldo Del Gallo III, Are "Methods of Doing Business" Finally Out of Business as a Statutory Rejection?, 38 IDEA 402, 403 (1998). 26. Makin, supra note 5, at 94. 27. State Street, 149 F.3d at 1376. 28. AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, 172 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 29. State Street, 149 F.3d at 1371, 1373. 30. Id., 149 F.3d at 1373. 31. E.g. State Street, 149 F.3d at 1372. 32. State Street, 149 F.3d at 1373. 33. AT&T Corp., 172 F.3d at 1356. 34. State Street, 149 F.3d at 1374. 35. Id. 36. Id, 149 F.3d. at 1373. 37. Id. 149 F.3d at 1374. 38. Id. 39. Id. 40. Id. 41. AT&T Corp., 172 F.3d at 1359. 42. Id., 172 F.3d at 1358-1359. 43. In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1989). 44. 35 U.S.C. § 101. 45. 35 U.S.C. § 100(b). 46. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 308 (1980). 47. Id. 48. State Street, 149 F.3d at 1372. 49. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 308. 50. Id., 447 U.S. at 309. 51. Id. 52. Id. 53. Id. 54. State Street, 149 F.3d at 1373. 55. Id., 149 F.3d at 1375. 56. Id., 149 F.3d at 1371. 57. Id., 149 F.3d at 1370. 58. Id. 59. Id., 149 F.3d at 1372. 60. Id., 149 F.3d at 1377. 61. Id. 62. Id., 149 F.3d at 1375. 63. Id., 149 F.3d at 1375. 64. Id. 65. Id., 149 F.3d at 1376. 66. Id., 149 F.3d at 1375. 67. Id., 149 F.3d at 1373. 68. AT&T Corp., 172 F.3d at 1356. 69. Id. 70. State Street, 149 F.3d at 1373. 71. Id. See also Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). 72. State Street, 149 F.3d at 1373. 73. In re Alappat, 33 F3d 1526, 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 74. AT&T Corp., 172 F.3d at 1360; citing In re Schrader, 22 F.3d 290, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 75. AT&T Corp. 172 F.3d at 1358. 76. Id. 77. Id. 172 F.3d at 1360. 78. State Street, 149 F.3d at 1374. 79. 35 U.S.C. § 1-26 (2001). 80. USPTO White Paper, supra note 8, available at www.uspto.gov/web/menu/busmethp/index.html. 81. Id. 82. Id. 83. State Street, 149 F.3d at 1375. 84. Jared Earl Grusd, Internet Business Methods: What Role Does and Should Patent Law Play?, 4 Va. J.L. & Tech. 9, 8 (Fall, 1999). 85. 35 U.S.C. §103 86. Additional Developments, 16 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 487 (2001). 87. Amazon.com v. Barnesandnoble.com, 239 F.3d 1343, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 88. Id. 89. Id., 239 F.3d at 1366. 90. Id. 91. Id., 239 F.3d at 1347. 92. Id., 239 F.3d at 1349. 93. Id., 239 F.3d at 1358. 94. Id. 95. Id., 239 F.3d at 1360.