Live Audio Webcast
Bringing the live seminar to you,
wherever you are.
KNOWLEDGE. INSIGHT. SOLUTIONS.
This program has been conducted.
Please see 'Related Items' for more options.
Bilski Supreme Court Arguments: Eyewitness Report and Expert Analysis (Audio-only)
Nov. 11, 2009Overview
November 11, 2009, 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm (E.S.T.)
Oral arguments in the Bilski matter will be held on Monday, November 9, 2009. Gene Quinn, patent attorney blogger and a principal lecturer in the PLI Patent Bar Review course will be in attendance. Please plan to join him along with John M. White who will also be present at the Supreme Court argument, Scott M. Alter of Faegre & Benson LLP and Douglas R. Nemec of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, co-chairs of PLI's 4th Annual Patent Law Institute for an eyewitness account of the Supreme Court oral arguments, commentary, insights and tips for navigating the software and business method space while we await a decision from the Supreme Court.
On October 30, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its much anticipated decision in In re Bilski. A central question that was presented by this case was whether a purely mental process is patentable subject matter. The Federal Circuit, however, decided to address the issue so broadly that it ultimately affected the patent-eligibility of numerous software-related inventions. We had been expecting a far reaching decision that dealt a blow to “pure” business method patents, but few really expected just how far reaching the decision would be and that it would call into question thousands of software patents granted over the last 10 to 15 years.
On Monday, June 1, 2009, the United States Supreme Court granted cert. in the Bilski case. The questions the Supreme Court announced they would address are:
1. Whether the Federal Circuit erred by holding that a "process" must be tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or transform a particular article into a different state or thing ("machine-or-transformation" test), to be eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101, despite this Court's precedent declining to limit the broad statutory grant of patent eligibility for "any" new and useful process beyond excluding patents for "laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas."
2. Whether the Federal Circuit's "machine-or-transformation" test for patent eligibility, which effectively forecloses meaningful patent protection to many business methods, contradicts the clear Congressional intent that patents protect "method[s] of doing or conducting business." 35 U.S.C. § 273.
This means that the last chapter on business methods and software has not yet been written.
Faculty
Speaker(s)
Scott M. Alter, Faegre & Benson LLPDouglas R. Nemec, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Eugene R. Quinn, Jr., President and Founder, IPWatchdog.com, IP Watchdog, Inc.
John M. White, Berenato & White, LLC; Director of Patent Professional Development, Practising Law Institute
Program Attorney(s)
Amy Taub, Practising Law InstituteCLE Credit
PLI makes every effort to accredit its Live Webcasts. Please check the CLE Calculator above for CLE information specific to your state.
PLI's Live Webcasts are approved for MCLE credit (unless otherwise noted in the product description) in the following states/territories:
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho*, Illinois, Indiana1, Iowa*, Kentucky*, Louisiana, Maine*, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, New Hampshire*, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, New York2, Ohio3, Oklahoma, Oregon*, Pennsylvania4, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming*.
*PLI will apply for credit upon request.
Arkansas, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Rhode Island: Audio-only live webcasts are not approved for credit.
1Indiana: Considered a distance education course. There is a 6 credit limit per year.
2 New York: Newly admitted attorneys may not take non-transitional course formats such as on-demand audio or video programs or live webcasts for CLE credit. Newly admitted attorneys not practicing law in the United States, however, may earn 12 transitional credits in non-traditional formats.
3Ohio: To confirm that the live webcast has been approved, please refer to the list of Ohio’s Approved Self Study Activities at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us. Online programs are considered self-study. Ohio attorneys have a 6 credit self-study limit per biennial compliance period. The Ohio CLE Board states that attorneys must have a 100% success rate in clicking on timestamps to receive ANY CLE credit for an online program.
4 Pennsylvania: A live webcast may be viewed individually or in a group setting. Credit may be granted to an attorney who views a live webcast individually. There is a 4.0 credit limit per year for this type of viewing. A live webcast viewed in a group setting receives live participatory credit if the program is open to the public and advertised at least 30 days prior to the program. Live webcasts viewed in a group setting that do not advertise at least 30 days prior the program will be considered "in-house", and therefore denied credit.
Running time and CLE credit hours are not necessarily the same. Please be aware that many states do not permit credit for luncheon speakers.
Note that some states limit the number of credit hours attorneys may claim for online CLE activities, and state rules vary with regard to whether online CLE activities qualify for participatory or self-study credits. For more information, refer to your state CLE website or call Customer Service at (800) 260-4PLI (4754) or email: info@pli.edu.
If you have already received credit for attending some or the entire program, please be aware that state administrators do not permit you to accrue additional credit for repeat viewing even if an additional credit certificate is subsequently issued.
Related Items
Bilski Supreme Court Arguments: Eyewitness Report and Expert Analysis 2009
Dec. 11, 2009
Bilski Supreme Court Arguments: Eyewitness Report and Expert Analysis (Audio-only)
Nov. 25, 2009
Continuing Legal Education since 1933.
