Tech Law Journal Daily E-Mail Alert
October 30, 2008, Alert No. 1,850.
Home Page | Calendar | Subscribe | Back Issues | Reference
Federal Circuit Curtails Business Method Patents

10/30. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) issued its 9-3 en banc opinion [132 pages in PDF] in In re Bernand Bilski and Rand Warsaw, an appeal from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), regarding patentable subject matter.

The Court of Appeals held that the Supreme Court's machine or transformation test is applicable to process patents, and that the Federal Circuit's useful, concrete and tangible result inquiry, discussed in State Street, is no longer to be relied upon.

This opinion may have far reaching consequences for business method patents. Although, Judge Mayer wrote in a dissenting opinion that it will not, while Judge Newman wrote in a dissenting opinion that it will create uncertainty.

Summary. The Court of Appeals affirmed the September 26, 2006, opinion [71 pages in PDF] of the BPAI, which affirmed the rejection of a claim for an invention that discloses a method of doing business -- a method of hedging risk in the field of commodities trading.

The Court of Appeals held that the "claims are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter" under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 101 provides, in full, that "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title."

Previously, the Federal Circuit held in its 1998 opinion in State Street Bank & Trust v. Signature Financial Group, 149 F.3d 1368, that business methods can be patentable subject matter. It followed with its 1999 opinion in AT&T v. Excel Communications, 172 F.3d 1352.

The just released opinion does not expressly reverse either State Street Bank or AT&T v. Excel Communications. However, it rejects the key components of those opinions.

State Street Bank, following the Federal Circuit's 1994 opinion in In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, articulated the "useful, concrete and tangible result" standard.

The just released opinion states that "we also conclude that the ``useful, concrete and tangible result´´ inquiry is inadequate and reaffirm that the machine-or-transformation test outlined by the Supreme Court is the proper test to apply".

It adds in footnote 19 that "As a result, those portions of our opinions in State Street and AT&T relying solely on a ``useful, concrete and tangible result´´ analysis should no longer be relied on."

This opinion does not preclude patentability of business methods. It does limit circumstances in which business method patents are patentable subject matter, and calls into question the validity of many patents granted in the past decade, particularly in the software and financial sectors.

Background. Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw filed a patent application with the USPTO in 1997. The USPTO rejected all eleven claims of the patent application of Bilski and Warsaw as not directed to patent eligible subject matter.

They claim that the USPTO's patent examiner erroneously rejected their claims.

The USPTO's BPAI described the claim as follows:

    "The invention relates to a method practices by a commodity provider for managing (i.e., hedging) the consumption risks associated with a commodity sold at a fixed price. It is disclosed that energy consumers face two kinds of risk: price risk and consumption risk (specification, p. 1). The proliferation of price risk management tools over the last 5 years before the filing date allows easy management of price risk (specification, p. 2). However, consumption risk (e.g., the need to use more or less energy than planned due to the weather) is said to be not currently managed in energy markets, which is the problem addressed by the invention (specification, p. 2)." (Parentheses in original.)

Claim 1 discloses:

    "A method for managing the consumption risk costs of a commodity sold by a commodity provider at a fixed price comprising the steps of:
      (a) initializing a series of transactions between said commodity provider and consumers of said commodity wherein said consumers purchase said commodity at a fixed rate based upon historical averages, said fixed rate corresponding to a risk position of said consumer:
      (b) identifying market participants for said commodity having a counter-risk position to said consumers: and
      (c) initiating a series of transactions between said commodity provider and said market participants at a second fixed rate such that said series of market participant transactions balances the risk position of said series of consumer transactions."

The BPAI affirmed the rejection by the USPTO.

Bilski and Warsaw brought the present appeal. A three judge panel heard oral argument, but did not issue an opinion. Rather, the Court sua sponte ordered en banc review.

The Federal Circuit requested in its February 15, 2008, order that parties brief the following issues for the Court's en banc review:

    (1) Whether claim 1 of the 08/833,892 patent application claims patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101?

    (2) What standard should govern in determining whether a process is patent-eligible subject matter under section 101?

    (3) Whether the claimed subject matter is not patent-eligible because it constitutes an abstract idea or mental process; when does a claim that contains both mental and physical steps create patent-eligible subject matter?

    (4) Whether a method or process must result in a physical transformation of an article or be tied to a machine to be patent-eligible subject matter under section 101?

    (5) Whether it is appropriate to reconsider State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998), and AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc., 172 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999), in this case and, if so, whether those cases should be overruled in any respect?

The Court heard oral argument on May 8, 2008.

Opinion of the Court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the BPAI, which affirmed the USPTO's rejection.

The Court wrote that "We affirm the decision of the Board because we conclude that Applicants' claims are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter, and in doing so, we clarify the standards applicable in determining whether a claimed method constitutes a statutory ``process´´ under § 101."

It began by noting that Section 101 "recites four categories of patent-eligible subject matter: processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter", and that since Bilski's and Warsaw's application does not address a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, this application turns on the meaning of processes.

It stated that "The true issue before us then is whether Applicants are seeking to claim a fundamental principle (such as an abstract idea) or a mental process. And the underlying legal question thus presented is what test or set of criteria governs the determination by the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") or courts as to whether a claim to a process is patentable under § 101 or, conversely, is drawn to unpatentable subject matter because it claims only a fundamental principle." (Parentheses in original.)

The Court then discussed at length and relied upon opinions of the Supreme Court regarding the meaning of process. It especially relied upon Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972), and Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978).

It wrote that "The question before us then is whether Applicants' claim recites a fundamental principle and, if so, whether it would pre-empt substantially all uses of that fundamental principle if allowed." The Court continued, the Supreme Court "has enunciated a definitive test to determine whether a process claim is tailored narrowly enough to encompass only a particular application of a fundamental principle rather than to pre-empt the principle itself. A claimed process is surely patent-eligible under § 101 if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing."

The Court continued that "we believe our reliance on the Supreme Court's machine-or-transformation test as the applicable test for § 101 analyses of process claims is sound." However, it added that "future developments in technology and the sciences may present difficult challenges to the machine-or-transformation test, just as the widespread use of computers and the advent of the Internet has begun to challenge it in the past decade."

"Thus, we recognize that the Supreme Court may ultimately decide to alter or perhaps even set aside this test to accommodate emerging technologies. And we certainly do not rule out the possibility that this court may in the future refine or augment the test or how it is applied. At present, however, and certainly for the present case, we see no need for such a departure and reaffirm that the machine-or-transformation test, properly applied, is the governing test for determining patent eligibility of a process under § 101", the Court concluded.

The Court added that the Supreme Court "has held that whether a claimed process is novel or non-obvious is irrelevant to the § 101 analysis", and "has made clear that it is inappropriate to determine the patent-eligibility of a claim as a whole based on whether selected limitations constitute patent-eligible subject matter".

The Court went on to reject other tests. It concluded that "the Freeman-Walter-Abele test is inadequate". It concluded that the "useful, concrete, and tangible result" language of State Street "is inadequate" and "should no longer be relied on". It also declined to adopt the "technological arts test" urged by some amici. Finally, it wrote that "We further reject calls for categorical exclusions beyond those for fundamental principles already identified by the Supreme Court."

It also elaborated that "even a claim that recites ``physical steps´´ but neither recites a particular machine or apparatus, nor transforms any article into a different state or thing, is not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter. Conversely, a claim that purportedly lacks any ``physical steps´´ but is still tied to a machine or achieves an eligible transformation passes muster under § 101.

The Court of Appeals then elaborated on the meaning of the machine or transformation test. It stated that "an applicant may show that a process claim satisfies § 101 either by showing that his claim is tied to a particular machine, or by showing that his claim transforms an article". It then discussed transformation, but not machine implementation.

"We leave to future cases the elaboration of the precise contours of machine implementation, as well as the answers to particular questions, such as whether or when recitation of a computer suffices to tie a process claim to a particular machine."

As for transformation, it opined that "A claimed process is patent-eligible if it transforms an article into a different state or thing. This transformation must be central to the purpose of the claimed process. But the main aspect of the transformation test that requires clarification here is what sorts of things constitute ``articles´´ such that their transformation is sufficient to impart patent-eligibility under § 101. It is virtually self-evident that a process for a chemical or physical transformation of physical objects or substances is patent-eligible subject matter."

"The raw materials of many information-age processes, however, are electronic signals and electronically-manipulated data. And some so-called business methods, such as that claimed in the present case, involve the manipulation of even more abstract constructs such as legal obligations, organizational relationships, and business risks. Which, if any, of these processes qualify as a transformation or reduction of an article into a different state or thing constituting patent-eligible subject matter?"

The Court reviewed some of its earlier cases, but added that "we see no reason here to expand the boundaries of what constitutes patent-eligible transformations of articles".

The Court also added that "Neither the PTO nor the courts may pay short shrift to the machine-or-transformation test by using purported equivalents or shortcuts such as a ``technological arts´´ requirement."

The Court then applied the law regarding transformation branch of the machine or transformation test to the facts of this case. It held that the claimed invention fails to meet the test.

It explained that "Purported transformations or manipulations simply of public or private legal obligations or relationships, business risks, or other such abstractions cannot meet the test because they are not physical objects or substances, and they are not representative of physical objects or substances. Applicants' process at most incorporates only such ineligible transformations."

Judge Timothy Dyk wrote a 20 page concurring opinion, in which Judge Linn joined, that reviews the legislative history of Section 101, dating back to the Patent Act of 1793, and argues that the holding in this case is supported by this legislative history.

Dissenting Opinions. This was a 9-3 decision. Judges Pauline Newman, Robert Mayer and Randall Rader each wrote dissenting opinions. Only Judge Newman argued that a patent should have been granted. Mayer argued that the Court should eliminate business method patents, and that its opinion will be "easily circumvented". Rader argued that the Court should have written a one sentence opinion: "Because Bilski claims merely an abstract idea, this court affirms the Board's rejection."

Judge Newman wrote in a 41 page dissent that "The court today acts en banc to impose a new and far-reaching restriction on the kinds of inventions that are eligible to participate in the patent system. The court achieves this result by redefining the word ``process´´ in the patent statute, to exclude all processes that do not transform physical matter or that are not performed by machines."

She continued that "The court thus excludes many of the kinds of inventions that apply today's electronic and photonic technologies, as well as other processes that handle data and information in novel ways. Such processes have long been patent eligible, and contribute to the vigor and variety of today’s Information Age. This exclusion of process inventions is contrary to statute, contrary to precedent, and a negation of the constitutional mandate."

She also wrote that the majority opinion's "impact on the future, as well as on the thousands of patents already granted, is unknown." And, "Uncertainty is the enemy of innovation."

Judge Mayer argued in a 25 page dissent that the majority did not go far enough. He would have eliminated business method patents altogether.

He wrote that "Affording patent protection to business methods lacks constitutional and statutory support, serves to hinder rather than promote innovation and usurps that which rightfully belongs in the public domain. State Street and AT&T should be overruled.

He argued too that "The patent system is intended to protect and promote advances in science and technology, not ideas about how to structure commercial transactions."

He also argued that business method patents "stifle innovation". That is, "Instead of providing incentives to competitors to develop improved business techniques, business method patents remove building blocks of commercial innovation from the public domain."

He also noted that "Another significant problem that plagues business method patents is that they tend to be of poor overall quality."

Mayer also predicted that the machine or transformation test "will do little to stem the growth of patents on non-technological methods and ideas. Quite simply, in the context of business method patent applications, the majority’s proposed standard can be too easily circumvented."

He also predicted that the majority opinion "will do little to restore public confidence in the patent system or stem the growth of patents on business methods and other non-technological ideas."

Judge Randall Rader argued that a huge opinion articulating a standard was not necessary. The Court should merely have written a short one sentence opinion, as follows: "Because Bilski claims merely an abstract idea, this court affirms the Board’s rejection."

He added that "Much of the court's difficulty lies in its reliance on dicta taken out of context from numerous Supreme Court opinions dealing with the technology of the past. In other words, as innovators seek the path to the next techno-revolution, this court ties our patent system to dicta from an industrial age decades removed from the bleeding edge."

Reaction. The Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) filed an amicus curiae brief [44 pages in PDF] with the Court of Appeals on April 8, 2008, arguing that State Street Bank should be "rejected". It stated in a release on October 30 that the just released opinion is "a great victory for the technology and Internet industries".

Ed Black, head of the CCIA, stated in this release that "The Federal Circuit's opinion implicitly recognizes that an out-of-control patent system was not promoting progress, but rather impeding it. The standard articulated in this case should limit the outrageous business method and software patents that we have recently seen without undermining the incentive to innovate in these areas."

Case Information. This case is In re Bernand Bilski and Rand Warsaw, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, App. Ct. No. 2007-1130, an appeal from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.

Judge Paul Michel wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Lourie, Schall, Bryson, Gajarsa, Linn, Dyk, Prost, and Moore joined. Judge Dyk also wrote a concurring opinion, in which Judge Linn joined. Judges Newman, Mayer, and Rader wrote dissents.

Bilski and Warsaw are represented by the The Webb Law Firm of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The Court of Appeals received numerous briefs and amicus briefs. See, story titled "Federal Circuit Receives Amicus Briefs Re Business Method Patents and Patentable Subject Matter" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,743, April 8, 2008.

In This Issue

This issue contains one story:
 • Federal Circuit Curtails Business Method Patents

Washington Tech Calendar
New items are highlighted in red.
Friday, October 31

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division (CSD) regarding its SP 800-70 Rev. 1 [66 pages in PDF] titled "DRAFT National Checklist Program for IT Products -- Guidelines for Checklist Users and Developers".

Deadline to submit comments to the Copyright Royalty Judges regarding its proposed regulations that set the rates and terms for the use of musical works in limited downloads, interactive streaming and incidental digital phonorecord deliveries. See, notice in the Federal Register, October 1, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 191, at Pages 57033-57040.

Deadline for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to respond to Rep. John Dingell's (D-MI) interrogatories regarding unlicensed use of the TV white space. See, Rep. Dingell's letter [PDF], and story titled "Rep. Dingell Writes FCC Regarding Unlicensed Devices in the White Space" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,847, October 27, 2008.

Sunday, November 2

Daylight savings time ends.

Monday, November 3

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in ClearValue v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., App. Ct. No. 2007-1487, a patent infringement case. See, Federal Circuit oral argument calendar. Location: Courtroom 201, Federal Circuit courthouse, LaFayette Square, 717 Madison Place, NW.

Deadline to submit to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's (OUSTR) post hearing briefs in connection with the 2008 Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) Annual Review. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 12, 2008, Vol. 73, No 178, at Pages 53054-53056.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (3rdFNPRM) regarding its failed D block auction and its efforts to facilitate a nationwide interoperable broadband wireless network for public safety entities. The FCC adopted and released this 3rdFNPRM [237 pages in PDF] on September 25, 2008. See, story titled "FCC Adopts Further NPRM Regarding Public Safety Broadband Network" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,832, September 25, 2008. This item is FCC 08-230 in WT Docket No. 06-150 and PS Docket No. 06-229. See, notice in the Federal Register, October 3, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 193, at Pages 57749-57851.

Tuesday, November 4

Election Day.

The Supreme Court will hear oral argument in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Sup. Ct. No. 07-582. See, story titled "Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in FCC Fleeting Expletives Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,732, March 18, 2008. This is a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals (2ndCir). On June 4, 2007, Court of Appeals issued its divided opinion [53 pages in PDF], which is also reported at 489 F.3d 444, holding that the FCC's new policy sanctioning "fleeting expletives" is arbitrary and capricious. See, story titled "2nd Circuit Vacates and Remands FCC Profanity Order" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,590, June 4, 2007. See also, Supreme Court docket. Location: Supreme Court, 1 First St., NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Sumitomo Mitsubishi Silicon Corporation v. Memc Electronic Materials, Inc., App. Ct. No. 2007-1578. See, Federal Circuit oral argument calendar. Location: Courtroom 201, Federal Circuit courthouse, LaFayette Square, 717 Madison Place, NW.

11:00 AM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) may meet. See, agenda [PDF]. Location: FCC, 445 12th St., SW.

Wednesday, November 5

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will begin Auction 85, regarding LPTV and TV Translator Digital Companion Channels. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 12, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 178, at Pages 53020-53025.

9:00 AM. The Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee (ISTAC) will meet. The agenda includes "Digital Forensics", "Industry Encryption Presentation", "Future Microprocessor Technologies", and "Discussion of Wassenaar Proposals for 2009". See, notice in the Federal Register, October 22, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 205, at Page 62951. Location: Room 3884, Hoover Building, 14th St., between Constitution and Pennsylvania Aves., NW.

9:00 AM - 4:00 PM. Day one of a two day meeting of the National Archives and Records Administration's (NARA) Advisory Committee on the Electronic Records Archives (ACERA). This meeting is free and open to the public. See, notice in the Federal Register, October 14, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 199, at Page 60721. Location: 700 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Wavetronix v. EIS Electronic, App. Ct. No. 2008-1129. See, Federal Circuit oral argument calendar. Location: Courtroom 201, Federal Circuit courthouse, LaFayette Square, 717 Madison Place, NW.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host the first of two parts of a program titled "Export Control Courses". This first part is titled "Introduction to Export Controls". The speakers will be Thomas Scott and Carol Kalinoski. The total price to attend ranges from $140 to $210. For more information, contact 202-626-3488. See, notice. This event qualifies for continuing legal education (CLE) credits. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, B-1 Level, 1250 H St., NW.

Deadline to submit comments to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in response to its interpretive release regarding the use of company web sites under the Exchange Act and the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, and the use of technology generally in providing information to investors. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 7, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 153, at Pages 45862-45874.

Thursday, November 6

9:00 AM. The Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee (ISTAC) will hold a closed meeting. See, notice in the Federal Register, October 22, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 205, at Page 62951. Location: Room 6087B, Hoover Building, 14th St., between Constitution and Pennsylvania Aves., NW.

9:00 AM - 4:00 PM. Day two of a two day meeting of the National Archives and Records Administration's (NARA) Advisory Committee on the Electronic Records Archives (ACERA). This meeting is free and open to the public. See, notice in the Federal Register, October 14, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 199, at Page 60721. Location: 700 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Biltmore Forest Broadcasting v. US, App. Ct. No. 2008-5055. See, Federal Circuit oral argument calendar. Location: Courtroom 201, Federal Circuit courthouse, LaFayette Square, 717 Madison Place, NW.

12:00 NOON. The Cato Institute will host a discussion of the book [Amazon] titled "Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World". The speaker will be David Friedman (author). See, notice and registration page. This event is free and open to the public. Lunch will be served after the program. The Cato will web cast this event. Location: Cato, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW.

1:30 - 3:00 PM. George Washington University's (GWU) law school's IP Speaker Series will host a lecture by Jeanne Fromer (Fordham University law school) titled "Claiming Intellectual Property". See, notice. Location: Student Conference Center (LIS201), GWU law school.

2:00 - 3:00 PM. The President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (PNSTAC) will hold a partially closed meeting by teleconference. The open portion of the meeting will be from 2:00 to 2:30 PM. It will include consideration of the "national security/emergency preparedness internet protocol-based traffic report". The closed portion of the meeting will be from 2:30 to 3:00 PM. It will cover "core network assurance, cyber collaboration and internet identity". See, notice in the Federal Register, October 16, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 201, at Page 61433.

RESCHEDULED FROM OCTOBER 8. 2:00 - 4:00 PM. The Department of State's (DOS) International Telecommunication Advisory Committee will meet to prepare for the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Council Meeting to be held on November 12-21, 2008, in Geneva, Switzerland. See, original notice in the Federal Register, September 22, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 184, at Page 54655. Location: 10th floor, 1120 20th St., NW. See, rescheduling notice in the Federal Register, September 26, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 188, at Pages 55891-55892.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a program titled "How to Litigate a Patent Infringement Case". The speakers will be Patrick Coyne and Jerry Ivey of Finnegan Henderson. The price to attend ranges from $80 to $115. For more information, contact 202-626-3488. See, notice. This event qualifies for continuing legal education (CLE) credits. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, B-1 Level, 1250 H St., NW.

7:00 - 9:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host an event titled "19th Annual FCBA Charity Auction". See, event web site. Location: Capital Hilton, 1001 16th St., NW.

Deadline to submit comments to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OUSTR) to assist it in prepared its annual National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers (NTE). This report is required by 19 U.S.C. § 2241. The NTE report is due annually by March 31. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 31, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 148, at Pages 44785-44786.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regarding its proposed changes to its Rules of Practice regarding its adjudicative proceedings. See, notice in the Federal Register, October 7, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 195, at Pages 58831-58858.

Deadline to submit comments to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regarding the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) National Cyber Security Division's information collection request titled "1670-NEW, US-CERT Incident Reporting". The DHS announced this request for comments in a notice in the Federal Register, October 7, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 195, at Pages 58608-58609. The DHS announced this information collection request in a notice in the Federal Register, June 11, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 113, at Pages 33101-33102.

Friday, November 7

9:00 AM - 3:30 PM. The Bureau of Economic Analysis's (BEA) BEA Advisory Committee (BEAAC) will meet. The meeting will address ways in which the national economic accounts can be presented more effectively for current economic analysis and recent statistical developments in national accounting. The BEAAC focuses on activities arising from innovative and
advancing technologies. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 29, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 189, at Page 56548. Location: BEA, 1441 L St., NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Synthes (USA) v. GM Dos Reis, App. Ct. No. 2008-1279, a patent infringement case involving the issue of personal jurisdiction. See, Federal Circuit oral argument calendar. Location: Courtroom 201, Federal Circuit courthouse, LaFayette Square, 717 Madison Place, NW.

2:00 - 3:00 PM. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) Patent Public Advisory Committee (TPAC) will meet. See, agenda. Location: USPTO, Madison East 2nd Floor, 600 Dulany St., Alexandria, VA.

About Tech Law Journal

Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and a subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year for a single recipient. There are discounts for subscribers with multiple recipients.

Free one month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free subscriptions are available for journalists, federal elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and executive branch. The TLJ web site is free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert are not published in the web site until two months after writing.

For information about subscriptions, see subscription information page.

TLJ is published by David Carney
Contact: 202-364-8882.
carney at techlawjournal dot com
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.

Privacy Policy
Notices & Disclaimers
Copyright 1998-2008 David Carney. All rights reserved.