Law360, New York ( January 21, 2014, 6:54 PM EST) -- Nineteen years ago, in In re Alappat,[1] the Federal Circuit held that a mathematical transformation of data to be performed by a general purpose computer was patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, reasoning that a computer is a machine and machines are patent eligible. Buried deep within Alappat was a dissent by Chief Judge Glenn Archer[2] containing reasoning virtually identical to that in Mayo v. Prometheus[3] decided by the U.S. Supreme Court almost two decades later....
Law360 is on it, so you are, too.
A Law360 subscription puts you at the center of fast-moving legal issues, trends and developments so you can act with speed and confidence. Over 200 articles are published daily across more than 60 topics, industries, practice areas and jurisdictions.
A Law360 subscription includes features such as
- Daily newsletters
- Expert analysis
- Mobile app
- Advanced search
- Judge information
- Real-time alerts
- 450K+ searchable archived articles
And more!
Experience Law360 today with a free 7-day trial.