In a unanimous decision – Commissioner of Patents v Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 202 – a Full Bench of three judges (Middleton, Perram and Nicholas JJ) of the Federal Court of Australia (‘Full Court’) has reversed last year’s ruling by Justice Burley that claims directed to a so-called ‘feature game’ implemented on an electronic gaming machine (EGM) constituted a patent-eligible ‘manner of manufacture’ under Australia law.  (A ‘feature game’ is a secondary, or bonus, game triggered by the occurrence of a defined event in the ‘base’ game of spinning reels.)  As I explained at the time, Justice Burley applied a two step test, asking firstly whether ‘the claimed invention is for a mere scheme or business method of the type that is not the proper subject matter of a grant of letters patent’ and then – if this question is answered in the affirmative – ‘whether the computer-implemented method is one where invention lay in the computerisation of the method’ as opposed to ‘merely plugging an unpatentable scheme into a computer’.  He found the claims to be patentable at the first step, because they were directed to ‘a mechanism of a particular construction’, i.e. a gaming machine.

The Full Court has rejected Justice Burley’s test, with the majority (Middleton and Perram JJ) proposing an alternative two step test (at [26]) which asks firstly whether the claimed invention is ‘a computer-implemented invention’ and then – if so – ‘can the invention claimed broadly be described as an advance in computer technology’.  The majority determined that Aristocrat’s EGM, despite being claimed in terms of a combination of hardware and software components, was in substance a computer-implemented invention, and that the asserted contribution of the claimed invention ‘pertains only to the use of a computer’ and not to ‘the development or advance of computer technology’ (at [63]-[64]).  As such, they concluded that the claims were not directed to patent-eligible subject matter.

The third judge of the Full Court, Nicholas J, arrived at the same ultimate conclusion, by different reasoning.  He agreed with the majority that Justice Burley’s two step test was not the correct approach, because it failed to ‘engage with the Commissioner’s submission that the invention as described and claimed was in substance a mere scheme or set of rules for playing a game implemented using generic computer technology for its well-known and well-understood functions’ (at [135]).  However, rather than embarking upon an inquiry as to whether Aristocrat’s claims were directed to a ‘computer-implemented invention’ he simply observed that ‘the substance of the invention, as described and claimed, resides in the game program code which embodies a computer implemented scheme or set of rules for the playing of a game’ (at [138]).  He further reasoned (at [140]-[142]) that the game code does not solve any ‘technological problem’, nor does it exhibit any ‘unusual technical effect due to the way in which the computer is utilised’, and therefore that there is nothing ‘about the way in which the game code causes the EGM to operate which can be regarded as having transformed what might otherwise be regarded as purely abstract information encoded in memory into something possessing the required artificial effect.’

While the Full Court found the representative claim at issue to be unpatentable, it did not entirely foreclose the possibility that there may be patent-eligible aspects to the inventions disclosed in Aristocrat’s four innovation patents.  The case has been remitted back to Justice Burley to determine any residual issues in light of the Full Court’s judgment.

There are positive and negative aspects to this decision.  On the plus side, the approach taken by the majority brings some clarity to the approach to be taken in construing and assessing claims to computer-implemented inventions, which often comprise a physical apparatus defined in terms of (possibly conventional) hardware, configured via software for particular functionality.  On the down side, however, the majority also relied upon the existence of ‘an advance in computer technology’ to confer patent-eligibility upon a computer-implemented invention, without providing clear guidance on what, exactly, is covered by this terminology.  The decision also perpetuates an uncertainty that exists around the exact role to be played by prior art information in applying the ‘manner of manufacture’ test to assess patent-eligibility.

Read more »

For years, customers have been demanding more from their financial institutions. Covid-19, and the consequences that came from the pandemic only accelerated these customer demands. Consumers expect immediacy, personalized, and flawless interactions with their favorite brands and they expect the same from their banks.

The post Chatbots in Banking: The New Must-Have in Customer Care appeared first on Inbenta.

One of the last steps to buying a home is the final walk-through but what exactly is a final walk-through and is it even necessary?

Automation is ecommerce’s greatest ally, and AI chatbots are its weapon. Explore winning ways to add them to your Black Friday strategy.

The post 9 Ways a Chatbot Can Help You Conquer Black Friday appeared first on Inbenta.

In the manufacturing industry, the capabilities and expertise of an operator are being presented in terms of “Efficiency. An operator with higher efficiency generates...

The Delhi High Court on April 5, 2021 dismissed two applications filed by Britannia Industries against ITC Ltd for alleged trademark infringement and passing off by the latter.

In the first article in this series I looked at the US approach to the role of the inventor in patent law and practice, and at the recent decision of Judge Leonie M Brinkema in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (‘EDVA’) upholding the USPTO’s decision to refuse two patent applications on the basis that the ‘AI’ machine DABUS is not a human being and therefore cannot be an inventor under US law (Stephen Thaler v Andrew Hirshfeld and the US Patent and Trademark Office, Mem. Op. [PDF 998kB]).  In this article, I shall turn my attention to the split decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in Thaler v Comptroller General of Patents Trade Marks And Designs [2021] EWCA Civ 1374, in which parallel efforts to name DABUS as an inventor have also been rejected, with Thaler’s appeal being dismissed despite a weighty dissent by Lord Justice Birss.

The issues in the UK case are somewhat different, and more nuanced, than in the US.  While all three judges on the Court of Appeal agreed that an ‘inventor’ under the UK law must be a human being, the fact that DABUS is a machine was not immediately determinative of the outcome.  An inventor is not required to play any active role in the filing, prosecution, or grant of a patent in the UK, so arguably there remains a question as to whether an application can be permitted to proceed even if a legally valid inventor has not been – or cannot be – named.  In the event, the answer to this question turned on whether or not the applicant (i.e. Dr Thaler) could satisfy statutory requirements to name the inventor, and to indicate how he is entitled to be granted patents on inventions that he did not claim to have devised himself.

Lord Justice Arnold and Lord Justice Birss disagreed on the outcome, with the tie being broken by Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing, agreeing with Arnold LJ that the DABUS applications should be deemed withdrawn. 

Arnold LJ is the preeminent patent law specialist on the Court of Appeal.  He was elevated to the Court of Appeal in 2019, after being appointed to the High Court in 2008, and as Judge in Charge of the Patents Court in April 2013.  In March 2016 he was appointed as an External Member of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office.  Impressive as this is, however, Birss LJ is no lightweight.  In 2010 he was appointed as a Specialist Circuit Judge sitting in what was then the Patents County Court.  In 2013 he was appointed to the High Court, and in 2019 he filled the place formerly held by Arnold LJ as Judge in Charge of the Patents Court, before being elevated to the Court of Appeal in January 2021.

So this is a case in which the dissenting judgment must be taken seriously, especially with the possibility still open of an appeal to the Supreme Court.  But for now, at least, the balance of the law remains against DABUS in the UK.

Read more »

FCR reduces churn and turns customers into brand fans, but how do you increase your first call resolution rate? Here some best practices!

The post 8 Best Practices to Boost Your First Contact Resolution Rate appeared first on Inbenta.

Can certain specific medical device details remain company know-how or protected trade secrets even if patents are pursued on the medical device?  Consider the Seventh Circuit’s commentary in its August 9, 2021 decision upholding a preliminary injunction in the Life Spine, Inc. v. Aegis Spine, Inc. case.  The preliminary injunction prohibits Aegis from selling or marketing its competing AccelFix product (shown below, right) until the case is resolved on the merits.

In 2019, Life Spine sued Aegis, a former distributor of Life Spine’s ProLift^® expandable spacers (shown below, left) used in spinal surgeries, for, among other things, misusing its trade secrets.

Aegis argued in appealing the preliminary injunction that the district court erred in concluding that information about the ProLift device could remain a protected trade secret after Life Spine patented, displayed, and sold the device to hospitals and surgeons.  However, the Seventh Circuit held that “Aegis does not come close to showing that [the district court’s] finding was clear error.”  The Seventh Circuit stated that Aegis had not proven that Life Spine’s patent materials disclose the “exact dimensions and measurements of every ProLift component.” In addition, the Seventh Circuit stated that “those who attend ProLift displays do not have unfettered access to the device” and that “the only purchasers of the ProLift are hospitals and surgeons, who purchase the device for use in scheduled surgeries.”

Regarding the patent materials, a figure of which is shown below, the Seventh Circuit noted that “Life Spine’s patent did not disclose the precise specifications of the ProLift” devices.  The Seventh Circuit recognized that such dimensions could only be learned by someone who has access to the device and sophisticated measurement technology.  As for public displays, the Seventh Circuit noted that Life Spine representatives supervise those who attend ProLift displays as they handle the devices.

Regarding sales of the ProLift device, the Seventh Circuit noted that Life Spine or its distributors ship the ProLift in sealed boxes and that the surgeries are overseen by Life Spine representatives or distributors.  The Seventh Circuit further noted that “it seems doubtful that the hospitals or surgeons purchasing the device . . . would secretly unpackage the device [and] measure all its components with specialized measurement technology” and that it “seems even more unlikely that a device would be removed from a patient’s body and then reverse engineered.”

Following this decision, the case will return to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to continue on the merits.

The post Medical Device Trade Secret Not Publicly Disclosed via Patenting, Displaying, and Selling Covered Product, 7th Cir. Affirms appeared first on Knobbe Medical.

This is a promoted post, although the funds used in the review were our own. Read more in our Editorial Policy. Please  note: This review is based on swapping a relatively small amount of bitcoin cash for ethereum.  There’s a new crypto exchanger on the block, with Seychelles registered/Dutch based exchanger AltcoinSwap. There have been a number of these systems pop up over the years, and following a similar method to the old version of Shapeshift. While some of these platforms have gotten a bit more complicated over the years, Altcoinswap is offering a pretty simple and straightforward service, swapping

The post A look at AltcoinSwap – Reviewing the process of exchanging BCH to ETH first appeared on Bitcoins In Ireland.

The CSPPA has said players will not record their videos and screens during their BLAST Premier Fall matches without clear agreements on how this information will be processed and who will have access to these recordings.

Valve has added chat filters to Steam allowing PC players to customize their experience across the platform. By default, strong profanity and slurs are blurred and players can define their language guidelines to filter language or choose not to.