Main

04/28/2014

FSTP Reference List

[0]     Complete Reference List of the FSTP –Project
[1]     S. Schindler: “US Highest Courts’ Patent Precedents in Mayo/Myriad/CLS/Ultramer­cial/LBC: ‘In­ven­­tive Concepts’ Accepted – ‘Abstract Ideas’ Next? Patenting Emerging Tech­. Inventions Now without Intrica­cies”
[5]     S. Schindler: “Mathematically Modeling Substantive Patent Law (SPL) Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up”, Yoko­hama, JURISIN 2013
[6]     S. Schindler "FSTP" pat. appl.: “THE FSTP EXPERT SYSTEM”, 2012
[7]     S. Schindler "DS" pat. appl.: “AN INNOVATION EXPERT SYSTEM, IES, & ITS PTR DATA STRUCTURE, PTR-DS”, 2013
[9]     .a S. Schindler: “Patent Business – Before Shake-up”, 2013
         .b S. Schindler: “Patent Business – Before Shake-up”, 2015
         .c S. Schindler, “Patent Business – Before Shake-up”, 2019
[10]   SSBG's Amicus Brief to the CAFC in LBC, 2013
[11]   S. Schindler "inC" pat. appl.: “inC ENABLED SEMI-AUTOMATIC SPL TESTS”, 2013
[14]   USPTO/MPEP: “2111 Claim Interpre­ta­tion; Broadest Reason. Interpr. [Eighth Ed., Rev.1], Feb. 2003”
         USPTO/MPEP: “2111 Claim Interpre­ta­tion; Broadest Reason. Interpr. [Eighth Ed., Rev.2], May 2004”
         USPTO/MPEP: “2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reason. Interpr. [Eighth Ed., Rev.3], Aug. 2005”
         USPTO/MPEP: “2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reason. Interpr. [Eighth Ed., Rev.4], Oct. 2005”
         USPTO/MPEP: “2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reason. Interpr. [Eighth Ed., Rev.5], Aug. 2006”
         USPTO/MPEP: “2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reason. Interpr. [Eighth Ed., Rev.6], Sept. 2007”
         USPTO/MPEP: “2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reason. Interpr. [Eighth Ed., Rev.7], July 2008”
         USPTO/MPEP: “2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reason. Interpr. [Eighth Ed., Rev.8], July 2010”
         USPTO/MPEP: “2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reason. Interpr. [Eighth Ed., Rev.9], Aug. 2012”
[15]   S. Schindler: “KR Support for SPL Prece­dents”, Barcelona, eKNOW-2014
[16]   J. Daily, S. Kieff: "Anything Under the Sun Made by Humans - SPL Doctrine as Endogenous Institutions for Commercial Innovation", Stanford and GWU
[18]   SSBG Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court in CLS, 07.10.2013
[19]   SSBG Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court in WildTangent, 23.09.2013
[20]   USPTO, “Intellectual Property and the US Economy: INDUSTRIES IN FOCUS”, 2012
[21]   K. O'Malley: Keynote Address, IPO, 2013
[22]   S. Schindler: “The View of an Inventor at the Grace Period”, Kiev, 2013
[23]   S. Schindler: “The IES and its In-C Enabled SPL Tests”, Munich, 2013
[24]   S. Schindler: “Two Fundamental Theorems of ‘Mathematical Innovation Science’”, Hong Kong, ECM-2013
[25]   S. Schindler, A. Paschke, S. Ramakrishna: “Formal Legal Reasoning that an Invention Satisfies SPL”, Bologna, JURIX-2013
[26]   SSBG Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court as to Bilski, 06.08.2009
[27]   T. Bench-Capon, F. Coenen: “Isomorphism and Legal Knowledge Based Systems”, AI&Law, 1992
[30]   K. Ashley, V. Walker: “From Information Retrieval to Argument Retrieval for Legal Cases: ..…”, Bologna, JURIX-2013
[32]   S. Schindler: “A KR Based Innovation Expert System (IES) for US SPL Precedents”, Phuket, ICIIM-2014
[36]   S. Schindler: "Boon and Bane of Inventive Concepts and the Refined Claim Construction in the Supreme Court's New Patent Precedents", Berkeley, IPSC, 08.08.2014
[37]   D.-M. Bey, C. Cotropia: "The Unreasonableness of the BRI Standard", AIPLA, 2009
[38]   Transcript of the Hearing in TELES vs. CISCO/USPTO as to the '902 and '453 patents, CAFC, 08.01.2014
[39]   Transcript of the en banc Hearing in CLS vs. ALICE, CAFC, 08.02.2013
[40]   SSBG's Brief to the CAFC in case No. 12-1297, '453 patent
[41]   SSBG's Brief to the CAFC in case No. 12-1513, '902 patent
[42]   SSBG's Amicus Brief to the CAFC in case CLS, 06.12.2012
[43]   S. Schindler, “LAC” pat. appl.: „Semi-Automatic Generation/Customization of (All) Confirmative Legal Argument Chains (LACs) in a Claimed Invention`s SPL Test, as Enabled by Its “Inventive Concepts”, 2014*)
[45]   SSBG's Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court as to its CII Question, 28.01.2014
[46]   S. Schindler: "Autom. Deriv. of Leg. Arg. Chains (LACs) from Arguable Subtests (ASTs) of a Claimed Invention's Test for Satisfying SPL", University of Warsaw, 24.05.2014
[47]   S. Schindler: "Automatic Generation of All ASTs for a Claimed Invention's SPL Test", subm. for publication
[48]   USPTO/MPEP: "2012 ... Proc. for Subj. Matter Eligibility ... of Process Claims Involving Laws of Nature", 2012
[49]   USPTO/MPEP, Supp. Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112, Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 27; MPEP 2171, Two Separate Requirements for Claims Under 35 U.S.C. 112(2), Rev. 11, 2014
[50]   NAUTILUS v. BIOSIG, PfC to the Supreme Court, 2013
[51]   BIOSIG, Respondent to PfC, 2013
[52]   Public Knowledge et al., Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court as to its indefiniteness questions, 2013
[53]   Amazon et al., Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court as to its indefiniteness questions, 2013
[54]   White House, FACT SHEET - "... the President's Call to Strenght. Our Patent System and Foster Innovation", 2014
[56]  CAFC Decision Phillips v. AWH Corp., 12.07.2005
[58]   SSBG's Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court as to its (In)Definiteness Questions, 03.03.2014
[59]   S. Schindler, “UI” pat. appl.: “An IES Capable of Semi-Auto. Generating/Invoking All Legal Argument Chains (LACs)  in the SPL Test of a Claimed Invention (CI), as Enabled by Its Inventive Concepts (inCs)”, 2014
[60]   S. Schindler: "Automatic Derivation of All Argument Chains Legally Defending Patenting/Patented Inventions", ISPIM, Montreal, 06.10.2014
[62]   .a) CAFC decision on reexamination of US Patent No. 7,145,902, 21.02.2014
[63]   .b) CAFC decision on reexamination of US Patent No. 6,954,453, 04.04.2014
[64]   B. Wegner, S. Schindler: "A Mathematical Structure Modeling Inventions", Coimbra, CICM-2014
[65]   SSBG`s Petition to the CAFC for Rehearing En Banc in the ‘902 case, 18.04.2014
[68]   B. Fiacco: Amicus Brief to the CAFC in VERSATA v. SAP & USPTO, 24.03.2014
[69]   Official Transcript of the oral argument in U.S. Supreme Court, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, Case 13-298 - Subject to final Review, March 31, 2014, Alderson Reporting Company
[70]   R. Rader, Keynote Speech: "Patent Law and Litigation Abuse", ED Tex Bench and Bar Conference, 01.11.2013
[71]   S. Schindler, Keynote Speech: “eKnowledge About Substantive Patent Law (SPL) – Trail Blazer into the Innovation Age”, Barcelona, eKNOW-2014
[72]   .a) S. Schindler: "The Supreme Court’s “SPL Initiative”: Scientizing Its SPL Interpretation Removes 3 Evergreen SPL Obscurities", Press Release, 08.04.2014
         .b) S. Schindler: "The Supreme Court`s ‘SPL Initiative’: Scientizing Its SPL Interpretation Removes 3 Evergreen Obscurities - and Enables Automation in a CI`s SPL Tests and Argument Chains", Honolulu, IAM2014S, 18.07.14
[73]   .a) USTPO/MPEP: "2014 Procedure For Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Of Claims Reciting Or Involving Law Of Nature/Natural Principles, Natural Phenomena, And/Or Natural Products", see [48, 49], 2014
          .b) MEMORANDUM: "Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice v. CLS", 25.06.2014
[74]   B. Wegner: “The Mathematical Background of Proving an Inventive Concepts Based Claimed Invention Satisfies SPL”, 7. GIPC, Mumbai, 16.01.2015
[76]   D. Crouch: “En Banc Federal Circuit Panel Changes the Law of Claim Construction”, 13.07.2005
[77]   Video of the USPTO Hearing, 09.05.2014
[79]   S. Schindler: “On the BRI-Schism in the US National Patent System (NPS) - A Challenge for the US Highest Courts”, 22.05.2014, subm. for publ.
[80]   SSBG`s Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court in the '902 case, Draft_V.133_of_[121], 14.07.2014
[81]   S. Schindler: "To Whom is Interested in the Supreme Court`s Biosig Decision", 04.06.2014
[82]   R. DeBerardine: “Innovation from the Corporate Perspective”, FCBA, DC, 23.05.2014
[83]   SSBG`s Petition to the CAFC for Rehearing En Banc in the '453 case, 09.06.2014
[84]   CAFC`s Order as to denial [83], 14.07.2014
[92]   SSBG’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court in the ‘453 case, 06.10.2014
[93]   E. Morris: “What is Technology”, IU I.N.
[94]   E. Morris: “Alice, Artifice, and Action – and Ultramercial”, IU I.N., 08.07.2014
[96]   A. Chopra: "Deer in the Headlights. Response of Incumbent Firms to Profit Destroying Innovation" School of Management, Fribourg, 2014
[99]   A. Hirshfeld, Alexandria, PTO, 22.07.2014
[100] C.Chun: “PTO`s Scrutiny on Software Patents Paying Off”, LAW360, N.Y., 22.07.2014
[112]  E. Bowen, C. Yates: “Justices Should Back Off Patent Eligibility, Michel says”, L360, 25.07.2014
[113]  S. Schindler: “The CAFC`s Rebellion is Over - The Supreme Court, by Mayo/Biosig/Alice, Provides Clear Guidance as to Patenting Emerging Technology Inventions”, 07.08.2014, sub. for publ.
[114]  S. Elliott: "The USPTO Patent Subj. Matter Eligi. Guidance TRIPS Over Treaty Requirements", 30.07.2014
[115]  W. Zheng: “Exhausting Patents”, IPSC, Berkeley, 08.08.2014
[116]  R. Merges: “Independent Invention: A Limited Defense of Absolute Infringement Liability in Patent Law” , IPSC, Berkeley, 08.08.2014
[118]  H. Surden: “Principles of Problematic Patents”, IPSC, Berkeley, 08.08.2014
[119]  Tecfidera Artikel aus der Zeit Online
[120]  J. Merkley, M. Warner, M. Begich, M. Heinrich, T. Udal: "Letter to Hon. Penny Pritzker, Secretary of Commerce", DC, 06.08.2014
[121]  SSBG`s Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court in the '902 case, 25.08.2014
[127] USSC Decision in KSR v. Teleflex, 30.04.2007
  USSC Decision in Bilski v. Kappos, 28.06.2010
         USSC Decision in Mayo v. Prometheus, 20.03.2012
         USSC Decision in Nautilus v. Biosig, 02.06.2014
         USSC Decision in Alice v. CLS, 19.06.2014
         USSC Decision in AMP v. Myriad, 13.06.2013
[129]  G. Quinn: “Judge Michel says Alice Decision ‘will create total chaos’ ”, IPWatchdog, 06.08.2014
[132]  B. Wegner, MEMO: “About relations (V.7-final)”, 25.04.2013
[136]  S. Schindler: “Tutorial on Commonalities Between System Design and SPL Testing“, sub. for publ., 18.10.2014 and eKNOW2015, Lisbon, 22.–27.02.2015

(Paper Title: “High-Level Tutorial I to Claimed Inventions’ post-Alice SPL Testing”)
[138]  S. Schindler: "The Supreme Court`s Guidance to Robust ET CI Patents", ICLPT, Bangkok, 22.01.2015
[139]  Supreme Court`s Order as to denial [121], 14.10.2014
[140]  S. Schindler: "§ 101 Bashing or § 101 Clarification", published 27.10.2014
[141]  BGH, "Demonstrationsschrank" decision
[147]  Transcript of the CAFC Hearing in Biosig case, 29.10.2014
[150]  S. Schindler: "Alice-Tests Enable "Quantifying" Their Inventive Concepts and thus Vastly “Increase the Robustness” of ET Patents – A Tutorial about this Key to Increasing a Patent`s Robustness", USPTO&GWU, 06.02.2015, also ABSTRACT, see also [175]
[151]  S. Schindler: “Biosig, Refined by Alice, Vastly Increases the Robustness of Patents - A Tutorial about this Key to Increasing a Patent`s Robustness -“, submitted for publication
[152]  S. Schindler: ”Automatic Derivation/Reproduction of Legal Argument Chains (LACs) Protecting Patents Against SPL Attacks”, Singapore, ISPIM, 09.12.2014
[153]  S. Schindler: "Practical Impacts of the Mayo/Alice/Biosig-Test - A Tutorial about this Key to Increasing a Patent`s Robustness", 2015 IP Scholars Roundtable, Drake University Law School, 27.03.2015
[154]  CAFC Decision in Interval, 10.09.2014
[156]  CAFC Decision in DDR, 05.12.2014
[157]  USPTO Guideline: "2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility", 16.12.2014
[158]  Supreme Court`s Order as to denial [92], 08.12.2014
[159]  CAFC Decision in Myriad, 17.12.2014
[160]  S. Schindler: "The Supreme Court`s Mayo/Myriad/Alice Decisions, The PTO`s Implementation by Its Interim Eligibility Guidance (IEG), The CAFC`s DDR&Myriad Recent Decisions - Clarifications&Challenges", publ. 14.01.2015, its short version, and its PP presentation at USPTO, 21.01.2015
[161]  S. Schindler: "The Innovation Expert System, IES: Philosophy & Functionality, Mathematical Fundament, Prototype", 7. GIPC, Mumbai, 16.01.2015
[162]  CAFC Decision in CET, 23.12.2014
[163]  S. Schindler: "The Supreme Court`s Mayo/Myriad/Alice Decisions: Their Overinterpretation vs. Oversimplification of ET CI Interpretations. Scientification of SPL Precedents as to ET CIs in Action. The CAFC`s Myriad&CET Decision.", subm. for publ., 07.01.2015
[164]  J. Schulze, D. Schoenberg, L. Hunger, S. Schindler: “Introduction to the IES User Interface of the FSTP-Test”, 7. GIPC, Mumbai, 16.01.2015, PPP
[165]  “ALICE AND PATENT DOOMSDAY IN THE NEW YEAR”, IPO, 06.01.2015
[167]  R. Sachs: "A Survey of Patent Invalidations since Alice", Fenwick & West LLP, LAW360, New York, 13.01.2015
[168]  S. Schindler: "PTO`s IEG Forum - Some Aftermath", this paper, publ. 10.02.2015
[169]  Agenda of this Forum on [157], Alexandria, USPTO, 21.01.2015
[170]  G. Quinn: “Patent eligib. forum discuss. examiners application of Mayo/Myriad/Alice”, IP Watchdog, 21.01.2015
[171]  S. Schindler: "Semiotic Impacts of the Supreme Court`s Mayo/Biosig/Alice Decisions on Legally analyzing ET CI`s", sub. for publ., 20.04.2015 and IntelliSys, London, 10.-11.11.2015
[172]  USSC Decision in Teva v. Sandoz, 20.01.2015
[173]  USSC Decision in Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 27.04.1982
[174]  USSC Decision in Markman v. Westview, 23.04.1996
[175]  S. Schindler: "Increasing a Patent`s Robustness by 'Double Quantifying' Its Inventive Concepts as Implied by Mayo/Alice", WIPIP, USPTO&GWU, 06.02.2015
[177]  D. Karshtedt: “The Completeness Requirement in Patent Law”, WIPIP, USPTO&GWU, 06.02.2015
[178]  O. Liivak: "The Unresolved Ambiguity of Patent Claims", WIPIP, USPTO&GWU, 06.02.2015
[179]  J. Miller: “Reasonable Certain Notice”, WIPIP, USPTO&GWU, 06.02.2015
[180]  S. Ghosh: “Demarcating Nature After Myriad”, WIPIP, USPTO&GWU, 06.02.2015
[181]  CAFC Decision In re Cuozzo, 04.02.2015
[183]  S. Schindler: "The Mayo/Alice SPL Terms/Notions in FSTP-Technology & PTO Initiatives", USPTO, 16.03.2015
[184]  S. Schindler: “PTOs Efficiency Increase by the FSTP-Test, e.g. EPO and USPTO”, LESI, Brussels, 10.04.2015
[189]  M. Lee: Luncheon Keynote Speech, PTO/IPO-EF Day, 10.03.2015
[194]  S. Schindler, B. Wegner, J. Schulze, D. Schoenberg: "post-Mayo/Biosig/Alice: The Precise Meanings of Their New SPL Terms", publ. 08.04.2015
[195]  R. Stoll: “Federal Circuit Cases to Watch on Software Patentability-Planet Blue”, Patently-O, 06.04.2015
[196]  See the resp. prominent panel at the IPBCGlobal'2015, San Francisco, 14-16.06.2015
[197]  S. Schindler: "Mayo/Alice - The Supreme Court`s Requirement Statement as to Semiotics in Substantive Patent Law (“SPL”) & Emerging Technology Claimed Inventions (“ET CI`s”)", USPTO, 06.05.2015
[198]  S. Schindler: “Patent`s absolute Robustness and the FSTP-Test – Semi-Automated by the Innovation Expert System, IES”, LESI 2015, Brussels, 13.04.2015, and DBKDA 2015, Rome, 27.05.2015
[199]  B. Wegner: "The FSTP Test – Its Mathematical Assessment of an ET CI’s Practical and SPL Quality", LESI 2015, Brussels, 13.04.2015, and DBKDA 2015, Rome, 27.05.2015
[200]  D. Schoenberg: “The FSTP Test A Software System for Assessing an ET CI’s Practical and SPL Quality”, LESI 2015, Brussels, 13.04.2015, and DBKDA 2015, Rome, 27.05.2015
[202]  S. Schindler: “The Notion of “Inventive Concept”, Fully Scientized SPL, and “Controlled Preemptive” ET CIs”, published by 11.06.2015

(Paper Title: The Mayo/Alice Notion of “Inventive Concept” Enables: Seeing Today’s “Preemptivity Gap”, The Scientification of Substantive Patent Law (“SPL”), and Thus Precisely Defining The Separation Line Between Patent-Eligibility and -Noneligibility of ET CIs)
[204]  J. Lefstin: “The Three Faces of Prometheus: A Post-Alice Jurisprudence of Abstraction”, N.C.J.L.&TECH, June 2015
[205]  CAFC Decision in BIOSIG vs NAUTILUS, 27.04.2015
[206] USSC Petition for Cert in ULTRAMERCIAL v. WILDTANGENT,  21.05.2015
[208]  S. Schindler: „The Reach of Substantive Patent Law Protection for ET CIs of Tied Preemptivity“, published by 25.06.2015

(Paper Title: “By Mayo/Biosig/Alice (“MBA”)the Supreme Court Induced the Scientification

●of Substantive Patent Law (SPL) for Emerging Technology Claimed Inventions (ET CIs),

●of the Patent-Eligibility Problem of SPL, and  

●of this Problem’s Solution.

Yet: What is the Impact of MBA on USPTO, CAFC – and Next the US Supreme Court (USSC)?”)
[209]  CAFC Decision in ARIOSA vs. SEQUENOM, 12.06.2015
[210]  S. Braswell: “All Rise for Chief Justice Robot”, Sean Braswell, 07.06.2015
[212]  R. Merges: "Uncertainty, and the Standard of Patentability", 1992
[213]  CAFC Decision in Teva, 18.06.2015
[217] S. Schindler: “The US National Patent System (“NPS”): Due to the Mayo/Biosig/Alice (“MBA”) Framework a Rough Diamond – but Rough for Ever? Teva willCut this Diamond and thus Create a Historic Mega-Trend in SPL, Internationally”,this paper`s parent paper, published by 22.07.2015.
[220]  CAFC Decision in LBC, 23.06.2015
[221] CAFC Decision in Cuozzo, 08.07.2015
[222] CAFC Decision in Versata, 09.07.2015
[223] CAFC Decision in Intellectual Ventures, 06.07.2015
[224] J. Duffy, J. Dabney, Pet. For Writ of Certiorari, 13.08.2009
[225] S. Schindler: "A PS to an Appraisal to the Supreme Court`s Teva Decision: CAFC Teaming-up with USPTO for Barring Teva - and this entire "ET Spirit" Framework?", published by 27.07.2015
[228] D. Kettelberger at CASRIP, Seattle,24.07.2015 – Session: „Biotech and Pharma Patents Eligibility: Challenges for Harmonization“
[229] Justice Breyer: “Archimedes Metaphor”, see [69]
[234] J. Dabney: The Return of the Inventive Concept, 06.12.2012
[235] .a USPTO: "July 2015 Update on Subj. Matter Eligibility", 30.07.2015
         .b USPTO: „May 2016 Update: Memorandum - Recent Subj.Matter Eligibility Decisions“, 19.05.2016
[237] S. Schindler: "The Supreme Court’s Patent Law Interpretation – Rooted in Kant", subm. for publ. 13.04.2016
[240] USSC: PfC by Cuozzo
[241] S. Schindler: “Draft of an Amicus Brief to the USSC in Cuozzo supporting“, publ. 05.11.2015*)
[244] S. Schindler: „The IEG’s July 2015 Update & the ‘Patent-Eligibility Granted/Granting, PEG’ Test“, subm. for publication, 18.12.2015
[245] M. Lee: USPTO Director's Forum, "Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative: Moving Forward", 06.11.2015
[247] S. Graham (LAW.COM): Q&A With AIPLA President Denise DeFranco, 13.11.2015
[248] USSC Decision in Parker vs. Flock, 22.06.1978
[249] CAFC Denial of En Banc Petition in Ariosa v. Sequenom, 02.12.2015
[250] D. Crouch (Patently-O): Federal Circuit Reluctantly Affirms Ariosa v. Sequenom and Denies En Banc Rehearing, 03.12.2015
[251]  S. Schindler: “Patent-Eligibility and the “Patent-Eligibility Granted/-ing , PEG” Test, resp. the CAFC Objectively Counters the Supreme Court’s MBA Framework, by its DDR vs. Myriad/ Cuozzo Decisions”, publ. 05.01.2016
[252] E. Coe: "Michelle Lee Steers USPTO Through Choppy Waters", LAW360, 09.12.2015
[257]
  S. Schindler: "A POST SCRIPTUM TO THE Motio DECISION OF THE EASTERN TEXAS DISTRICT COURT", subm. for publication 11.01.2016
[258] S. Schindler: "BRIPTO by the USPTO or BRIMBA by the Supreme Court?", subm. for publ. 04.02.2016
[259]  S. Schindler: "Classical „Limitations“ or MBA Framework’s „Inventive Concepts“?", subm. for publ., 08.02.2016
[260] S. Schindler: „Patent-Eligibility: Vague Feelings or an MBA Fact?“, subm. for publ. 12.02.2016
[261] S. Schindler, U. Diaz, T. Hofmann, L. Hunger, C. Negrutiu, D. Schoenberg, J. Schulze, J. Wang, B. Wegner, R. Wetzler: “The User Interface Design of an Innovation Expert System (= IES) for Testing an Emerging Technology Claimed Invention (= ETCI) for its Satisfying Substantive Patent Law (= SPL)”, subm.for publ. 07.03.2016
[271] S. Schindler: ”THE SUPREME COURT’S ”MBA FRAMEWORK“1.a) IMPLIES ”LEVELS OF ABSTRACTION“ or5.a) THE MBA FRAMEWORK TRANSFORMS
● FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATION BY §112(6/f)
● CLAIM INTERPRETATION & CONSTRUCTION
FROM SPECULATIVE METHAPHYSICS INTO RATIONALITY, publ. 12.05.2016
[273]  S. Schindler: “MEMO about "Mathematical Inventive Intelligence, MII ", subm. for publ. 21.06.2016
[277] CAFC Decision in Williamson v. Citrix Online, 2015
[279] USSC: Transcript Oral Hearing In re Cuozzo on 25.04.2016
[282] R. Bahr, USPTO: "Formulating a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection and Evaluating....", 04.05.2016
[283] S. Schindler: "Prototype Demonstration of the Innovation Expert System", LESI 2016, Peking, 16.05.2016.
[284] B. Wegner: "The FSTP – Its Mathemat. Assessment of an ETCI's Practical and SPL Quality", LESI 2016, Peking, 16.05.2016.
[285] D. Schoenberg: "Presentation of the IES Prototype", LESI 2016, Peking, 16.05.2016.
[289] CAFC, Decision in TLI, 17.05.2016.
[290] CAFC, Decision in Enfish, 12.05.2016
[291] S. Schindler: "Enfish & TLI:  The CAFC in Line with the Supreme Court's MBA Framework", publ.25.05.2016
[292] R.Bahr, USPTO: MEMORANDUM as to "Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decisions ...", 19.05.2016.
[293] S. Schindler: " MRF, the Master Review Form in USPTO's EPQI, SPL, and the IES ", publ. 30.05.2016
[296] S. Schindler: "A Comment on the 2016 IEG Update  – Suggesting More Scrutiny ",  publ. by 09.06.2016
[300] S. Schindler: "Epilog to the Patent-Eligibility Problem (Part I)", publ. on 20.07.2016
[301] S. Schindler: "Epilog to the Basic Patent-Eligibility Problem (Part II)", 19.09.2016, this publ.
[303] CAFC, Judgment in Jericho v. Axiomatics, 14.03.2016
[304] CAFC, Decision in Rapid Litigation Management v. Cellzdirect, 05.07.2016
[306] CAFC, Decision In re Alappat, 29.07.1994
[307] USSC, Decision in Diamond v. Diehr, 03.03.1981
[308] USSC, Petition of Certiorari, OIP v. Amazon, 12.11.2015
[309] USSC, Petition of Certiorari, Sequenom v. Ariosa, 21.03.2016
[310] USSC, Petition of Certiorari, Jericho v. Axiomatics, 10.06.2016
[311] CAFC, Decision in Bascom v. AT&T, 27.06.2016
[312] R.Bahr, USPTO: MEMORANDUM as to "Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Rulings", 14.07.2016
[313] a.) Wikipedia: „First-order logic“
         b.) Wikipedia: „Prädikatenlogik“
         c.) Wikipedia: "Analytic Philosophy"
         d.) Wikipedia: "D. Parnas“

 

[314] J.Duffy: "Counterproductive Notice in Literalistic v. Peripheral Claiming", UoV, June 2016
[317] R. Stoll: "Innovation Issues in the Americas - USA - Subject Matter Eligibility", CASRIP, Seattle, 22.07.2016
[320] S. Schindler “Modeling Semantics for the ‘Innovation Description Language, IDL’ for ETCIs”, publ. 20.03.2017
[322] CAFC, Decision in In re CSB-System International, 09.08.2016
[323] USSC, Decision in Cuozzo, 20.06.2016
[328] CAFC Decision CLS v. Alice, 10.05.2013
[331] S.Schindler: "A PS to my Epilog for the PE-Problem (Part I[300] & II[301])",  publ. 22.09.2016
[332] S. Schindler: " MEMO: The  Notion of Claiming in SPL – pre and post the Aufklärung", publ. 10.10.2016
[333] CAFC, Decision in Intellectual Ventures v. SYMANTEC, 30.09.2016
[334] S. Schindler: "Two Blueprints for Refining the IEG’s Update to Solving the PE Problem or A PS to my Comment on John Duffy's Essay about "Claiming" under 35 USC ", publ. 03.12.2016
[335] T. Kuhn: „The Structure of Scientific Revolutions“, UCP, 1962, see also Wikipedia
[340] S. Schindler:  "MEMO: The Two § 101 Flaws in the CAFC's IV Decision, caused by the Phenomenon of 'Paradigm Shift Paralysis' in SPL Precedents about ETCIs", publ. 26.10.2016
[342] J. Herndo:"Just When You Thought the CAFC would Softening … the Tide Turns Again", PATENTDOCS, 04.10.2016
[343] D. Atkins: "Federal Judges Slam Alice at Event Honoring Judge Whyte",Law360, 20.10.2016
[344] CAFC, Decision in AMDOCS v. OPENET TELECOM, 01.11.2016
[345] R. Bahr, USPTO: MEMORANDUM as to "Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decisions ...", 02.11.2016 
[346] S. Schindler: "The AMDOCS Dissent Stirs up the Key Deficiency of the CAFC's pro-PE Alice Decisions, thus showing: The Time is Ripe for Ending the §101 Chaos! ", publ., 11.11.2016
[347] S. Schindler: " ROUNDTABLE  ON PATENT  SUBJECT  MATTER  ELIGIBILITY ",  pub., 14.11.2016
[348] B. Wegner: Invited paper, „Innovation, knowledge representation, knowledge management and classical mathematical thinking“, Corfu, Ionian University, pub., 22.11.2016
[349] B. Wegner: Invited paper, “Math. Modelling of a Robust Claim Interpretation and Claim Construction for an ETCI, - Adv. Steps of a “Mathematical Theory of Innovation””, Bangkok, ICMA-MU, 17.-19.12.2016
[350] S. Schindler: "The IES Qualification Machine: Prototype Demonstration", GIPC, New Delhi, 11.-13.01.2017
[351] B. Wegner: "FSTP – Math. Assess. of ETCIs’ Quality", GIPC, New Delhi, 11.-13.01.2017
[352] D. Schoenberg: "The IES Prototype Qualification Machine ", GIPC, New Delhi, 11.-13.01.2017
[353] S. Schindler: “The Lesson to be Learned from the US Patent-Eligibility Hype: It Supports the USPTOs Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative, EPQI/MRF”, publ. 11.12.2016
[354] Schindler: “An Amazing SPL Cognition: Any Patent Application is Draftable Totally Robust, Part A”, pub­lished on 31.01.2017
[355] S. Schindler: "An Amazing SPL Cognition: Any Patent (Application) may be Drafted Totally Robust, Memo B", published by 07.03.2017
[358] N. Solomon: "The Disintegration of the American Patent System - Adverse Consequences of Court Decisions", IP Watchdog, 26./29.01.2017
[359] IPO ("Intellectual Property Association"): "Proposed Amendments to Patent Eligible Subject Matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101", 07.02.2017
[360] IA ("Internet Association"): "Letter to President-elect Trump", 14.11.2016
[362] USPTO/PTAB: Ex parte Schulhauser, 2016
[363] B. Katterheinrich et al: "What Schulhauser Means For Condit. Claim Limitations", LAW360, 03.02.2017
[364] S. Schindler: "The PTAB’s Schulhauser Decision is Untenable as Contradicting Alice", publ. 09.03.2017
[365] R. Katznelson: “Can the Supreme Court’s erosion of patent rights be reversed?”, IPWatchdog, 02.03.2017
[366] CAFC, Decision in TVI v. Elbit, 08.03.2017
[367] P. Michel, P. Stone, P. Evans, P. Detkin, D. Matteo, R. Sterne, J. Mar-Spinola, et al.“The Current Patent Landscape in the US and Abroad”, 12th APLI, USPTO, 09.-10.03.2017
[372] S. Schindler: "Innovation Description Languages, IDLs & Knowledge Representations, KRs, and Easily Drafting&Testing Patents for Their Total Robustness", 16.05.2017
[374] Justice Thomas: Friendly Comment, 04.12.2015
[375] J. Koh, P. Tresemer: "Client Alert of 15.05.2017", Latham&Watkins
[376] AIPLA: "Legislative Proposal and Report On Patent Eligible Subject Matter", 12.05.2017
[377] IPO: “Proposed Amendments to Patent Eligible Subject Matter”, 07.02.2017
[379]   ABA: Letter by D. Suchy to the USPTO, 28.03.2017
[380] SIPO: Message by H.-M. Tso, J. Yi, 31.03.2017
[381] K. Canady: "Take a Walk on the Bio Side: Patent-Eligibility of Biotechnological Inventions", AIPLA, 17.05.2017
[382] S. Alter: "Nuts&Bolts of 101", AIPLA, 17.05.2017
[383] B. Stoll: "101 in the Future", AIPLA, 17.05.2017
[384] G. Wisdom: "Business Analysis Based on Alice (Conceded to be Totally Abstract)", Microsoft, AIPLA, 17.05.2017
[385] EFF: “Comments Regarding … Subject Matter Eligibility”, 18.01.2017.*)
[387] J. Duffy, C. Banys, T. Sichelman: "The Future of Patent Venue", AIPLA 2017 Spring Conference, 18.05.2017
[388] USSC, Decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft, 22.05.2017
[389] AIPLA: “Patent Venue Statute is not Modified by General Venue Statute”, 22.05.2017
[390] S. Schindler: “The Recent AIPLA Meeting’s New Trend as to Nationwide §101-Guidelines …”, publ., 14.06.2017
[391] S. Schindler_ANNEX[391] to[390]-Trivializing and Semi-Automatizing ETCIs’ SPL-Satisf.-Tests, publ. 09.07.2017 (Paper Title: The Use of the FSTP-Test is for all ETCIs Trivial & Semi-Automatic)
[394] S. Schindler: "Innovation Description Languages & Knowledge Representations", IRRP'17, Orlando, 08.-11.07.2017

 

[395] S. Schindler: “Innovation Desc. Languages & Knowledge Rep.s”, IKE’17, Las Vegas, 17.-20.07.2017

 

[396] S. Schindler: “Innovation Desc. Languages & Knowledge Rep.s”, GCKE-2017, Qingdao, China, 19.-21. 09.2017.

 

[397] CAFC, Decision in ARIOSA v. SEQUENOM, 12.06.2015
[398] CAFC, Decision on Petition for Hearing en Banc in ARIOSA v. SEQUENOM, 02.12.2015
[399] USSC, PfC in ARIOSA v. SEQUENOM, 21.03.2016, DENIED on 27.06.2016
[400] S. Schindler: “MEMO: Sequenom ─ An Incomplete Interpretation of §101/Alice by the CAFC, but, Sequenom’s PfC also Misses the Point ─ the USSC Denial hence Consequential”, pub. 17.07.2017
[403] P. Jenq, J. Jenq: “Parallel Prediction of Stock Volatility”, WMSCI2017, 09.07.2017
[404] J. Duffy: „The USSC and Biosimilar Litigation - Amgen v. Sandoz“, 2017 CASRIP, 10.07.2017
[405] P. Morris: “The Latest Developments in CRISPR-Technology”, 2017 CASRIP, 10.07.2017
[406] S. Schindler: "THE  ETCI's  PATENTELIGIBILITY  THEOREM,  FSTP-TECHNOLOGY,  IES, ...: THE  MBA-FRAMEWORK  AND  THE  US  INNOVATION  ECONOMIES' WORLDWIDE  LEAD", publ. 01.08.2017
[407] USPTO “Patent Eligible Subject Matter, Report on … from the Public”, 25.07.2017
[408] C. Coons, T. Cotton, D. Durbin, M. Hirono “Stronger Patents Act 2017”, 21.06.2017
[411] D. Kolker: "USPTO Guidelines on Subject Matter Eligibility", BCBCP Partnership Meeting, 02.08.2017
[412] J. Chambers: "Stakeholders' Perspectives on S.M. Eligibility", BCBCP Partnership Meeting, 02.08.2017
[415] S. Schindler:"The USPTO’s §101/Biotech Workshop: The USPTO’s PE-Test is too Vague to Help", publ. 16.09.2017
[416] G. Nickol: "Update on Cancer Immunotherapy Program", BCBCP Partnership Meeting, 02.08.2017
[417] D. Nguyen: "WIPO Standard ST.26 (Nucleotide and Amino Acid Sequence, Disclosures)", BCBCP Partnership Meeting, 02.08.2017
[418] USSC PfC: Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics, 27.04.2017
[419] USSC PfC: Openet v. Amdocs, 24.07.2017
[420] CAFC-pending:  In re Burgos

 

[421] CAFC Decision in Visual Memory v. Nvidia Corp., 15.08.2017
[423] S. Schindler: „The CAFC/USPTO Biotech/PE-Decisions Reconsidered –– Especially for Biotech/R&D-Investors“, publ. 15.10.2017
[424] P. Michel: Comment on the BRI, at recent Congressional hearing
[425] N. Kelly, USPTO Brief Tinnus v. Telebrands, 29.08.17
[426] L. Fischer: „IP & Diagnostic Symposium“, Alexandria, 29.09.2017
[428] W. Woessner: " IP & Diagnostic Symposium“, Alexandria, 29.09.2017
[433] S. Schindler: An SPL’s ETCI is ‘Digitized’ iff it is Totally-Robust ─ Especially PE. An Aftermath - The Semiotics of ‘Digitized’ and the Oil States Case, publ. 05.11.2017
[436] P. Ludwig, AIPPI 2017, Sydney, World C., M. Pharma2 Injunctions innovator vs. innovator, 16.10.2017
[437] J.Lefstin, P.Menell, D.Taylor: “Final Rep. of the Berkeley Center for Law & Tech. Section 101 Workshop: Addressing Patent Eligibility Challenge”, Berkeley Tech. Law Journal, 2018 Forthcoming
[438] USSC, Brief of Federal Respondent (USPTO) in Oil States Energy v. Greene's Energy
[440] S. Schindler The Supreme Court’s ‘Outer Shell’-Specification of an ETCI – Digitizing & Mathematizing It. & The Semi-Automatic FSTP-Tests by the IES of ETCIs for Satisfying SPL– DDR, Myriad, Sequenom, GTG. & The German SPL-Precedents Implies the Supreme Court’s SPL-Framework – Political Issues., pub. 20.01.2018
[443] S.Schindler, C.Negrutiu, D.Schoenberg, J.Schulze, J.Wang, B.Wegner, R.Wetzler"The User Interface Design of the IES for Testing an ETCI’s Satisfying SPL", 23.01.2018
[444] S.Schindler, C.Negrutiu, D.Schoenberg, J.Schulze, J.Wang, B.Wegner, R.Wetzler"The IES GUI – A Primer: Using the FSTP-Test, Inhouse Mode", 23.01.2018
[445] B. Wegner: „A Mathematical KR Model for Claim Interpretation and Construction“, GIPC 2018, Bangalore, 23.01.2018
[446] R. Stoll (on IP Watchdog): „Director Andrei Iancus Act One“, 26.11.2017
[447] R. Katznelson: „Private Patent Rights, the Patent Bargain and the Fiction of Administrative “Error Correction” in Inter Partes Reviews“, 04.12.2017
[452] CAFC Decision Finjan v. Blue Coat Systems, 10.01.2018
[453] S. Schindler: “By Artificial Intelligence:  German Substantive Patent Law (SPL) is as Fine as US-SPL and the Huge Advantages of US/G-SPL will Greatly Boost Any Patent-Protected Business & Investments (prel.)”, publ. 19.04.2018
Paper Title: "AI-Interpretation of US & German Substantive Patent Law will Boost R&D-Investments."
[454] CAFC, Decision in EXERGEN, 08.03.2018
[456] S. Schindler: “Short Artificial Intelligence Comment on MPEP2018_SECT2106 – NO IMPROVEMENT.”, publ. 28.02.2018
[458] S. Schindler: “Comment on the Absurdity of §101 in MPEP-2018_Sect2106.”, publ. 16.03.2018
[459] Schindler: “Andrei Iancu’s Promises of More Certainty in USPTO’s PE-Decisions – Hope- or Harmful?”, publ. 03.05.2018
       
[460] USSC, Decision in Oil States, 24.04.2018
[461] USSC, Decision in SAS INSTITUTE, 24.04.2018
[462] CAFC, Decision in Berkheimer vs. HP, 08.02.2018
[463] A. Iancu: Statement before the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. Senate: “Oversight of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office”, 18.04.2018
[464] M. Borella (PATENT DOCS): “USPTO Updates Patent Eligibility Guidance in View of Berkheimer”, 23.04.2018
[466] A. Iancu: “Role of US Patent Policy in Domestic Innovation and Potential Impacts on Investment.”, AmCham, 11.04.2018 
[467] CAFC, Decision in VANDA, 13.04.2018
[468]  S. Schindler: “Andrei Iancu’s Further Public Discussion about USPTO’s Services”, publ. 11.05.2018
[469] USPTO’s NPRM concerning the BRI, 09.05.2018
[470] S. Schindler: „USPTO’s Berkheimer PE-Guideline Talks the US Patent Community onto a Wrong Track and A Question – not asked – as to USPTO’s DataBase-Searching for Patent(- Application)s“, REMAKE publ. 06.07.2018
[472] J. Manno, K. Parendo ”Demonstration USPTO ‘Search Tools’, USPTO, 03.05.2018
[474] R.Bahr, USPTO, MEMORANDUM (as to Berkheimer), 19.04.2018
[475] B. Goodlatte, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee “Goodlatte Statement at USPTO Oversight Hearing”, 22.05.2018
[476] A. Iancu “Oversight of the USPTO”, before the Committee on the Judiciary US House of Representatives”, 22.05.2018
[477] S. Schindler: “Rationality Returns into the US SPL-Drama – due to its White Knight.”, publ.20.06.2018
[478] A. Iancu: “Remarks Delivered at the IPBC Global Conference ”, 11.06.2018
        A. Iancu: “Remarks delivered at the AEI”, 21.06.2018
[479] S. Schindler: “Summary of the FSTP-View at the BRI”, publ. 09.07.2018
Paper Title: "Dropping the BRI-Standard is Necessary! But can the Phillips-Standard Meet the Supreme Court's Framework Requirements?"
[480] S. Schindler: "The PE-Guidelines Drove the US NPS into PE-Misery - What is its Ideal Fix­ing Today?", publ.17.07.2018
Paper Title: "A Fresh Look at the USPTO's PE-Guidance - by Andrei Iancu before the AEI"
[481] J. Wild: „Iancu makes 101 waves, ….”, 12.06.2018
[482] S. Schindler: “Andrei Iancu ─ After 100+ Days Even Stronger on Track.”, publ. 25.07.2018
[483] S. Schindler: “A PE-Guideline for Anybody ─ Framework-based, Precise, Short, and Simple!!”, publ.30.07.2018

 

[484] S. Schindler: "Sliding Interpretations of AIA-§§ Threaten US Development of Emerging Technologies. Pertinent Supreme Court’s Decisions Needed for Stabilizing the US NPS.”, publ. 21.08.2018
[486] B. Mathis III: “No Light at the End of the (Alice) Tunnel. Not Even Close”, IP WATCHDOG, 01.08.2018
[487] S. Mahanta: “CRISPR Modified CAR T-Cells Bolster Immuno Oncology Arsenal”, IPWatchdog, 27.08.2018
[488] S. Schindler: “UC’s vs Broad/MIT’s CRISPR-ETCIs and the Supreme Court’s Frame-work.”, Part I, publ. 20.09.2018
[489] S. Schindler: UC’s vs. Broad/MIT/Harvard’s CRISPR Patents & the Supreme Court’s Framework”, Part II, publ. 25.10.2018
[490] Nic Fleming: “Computer-calculated Compounds”, NATURE, 31.05.2018
[491] USPTO/PTAB: Decision in Broad/MIT vs UC, 15.02.2017
[492] CAFC: Briefs of both parties to the CAFC in Broad/MIT vs UC, 25.07./ 25.10.,/ 22.11.2017
[493] CAFC: Decision in Broad/MIT/Harvard vs UC, 10.09.2018
[494] K. Noonan: “CAFC Approves PTAB as to CRISPR Interference”, PATENTDOCS, 10.09.2018
[495] S. Schindler, B. Wittig: ”UC’s vs. Broad’s CRISPR Patent & the Supreme Court’s Frame­work, AI-Support ……”, Part III, publ. 30.01.2019
[496] WIPO: IP Handbook, Chap. 7 & Admin. Instructions – Ann. C, 2nd Ed. 2004, Reprint 2008

            WIPO : Intellectual Property Handbook - Policy, Law and Use Chapter 7 Technol. & Legal Developments in IP...Biotechnology

            PCT Administrative Instructions-Annex C Nucleotide and Amino Acid Sequences Listing PCT_AI_1

[497] USPTO: MPEP Chapter 2400 Biotechnology, Last Revised Jan. 2018
[498] EPO: EPC, Chapter V, 16th edition/June 2016 and DIRECTIVE 98-44-EC, 6. 7.1998

            EPC_16th_edition_2016_en- Chapter V Biotechnological inventions 

            Update of 06.07.1998 DIRECTIVE 98-44-EC legal protection of biotech. inventions, 24.11.2016

            DIRECTIVE 98-44-EC legal protection of biotech. invention_06.07.1998

[499] US CONGRESS: H.R.5340 - STRONGER Patents Act of 2018 (Bill)
[500] S. Schindler: “Andrei Iancu’s § 101 Challenge ─ Becoming his § 101 Success Story? The USPTO’s Recent Claim Interpretation May Render Alice’s § 101 Test As Patent Champion.”, 14.11.2018
[501] G. Findlay: "Accurate Classification of BRCA1 Variants with Saturation Genome Editing.", Springer Nature Limited, publ. 12.09.2018
[502] P. Akcakaya: "In vivo CRISPR editing with no detectable genome ─ wide off-target mutations", Springer Nature Limited, publ. 12.09.2018
[503] S. Schindler, B. Wittig: ”UC’s vs. Broad’s CRISPR Patents & the Supreme Court’s Frame­work, AI-Support ─ About BIOETCIs & MBIOETCIs ”, Part IV, publ. 10.04.2019
[504] USPTO: The 2019 §§ 101&112 Guidelines, 07.01.2019

            2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance

            Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112

[508] S. Schindler, B. Wittig: “The SPL-AI-Relation of ‘Application-Controlled ETCIs, AC-ETCIs’, Part V”, publ. 21.02.2020
[510] S. Schindler: “Finally, CAFC & USPTO Started Friendly Approaching the Supreme Court’s SPL-Framework! One Year of Andrei Iancu’s Spirit in the USPTO ─ and All US Legal Patent-Business is of Good-Will.”, publ. 06.03.2019
[511] CAFC, Decision in Athena, 06.02.2019
[512] G.Quinn: “Why the CAFC is to Blame ..”, IP WATCHDOG, 25.02.2019
[515] David O. Taylor: “Patent Eligibility and Investment”, Date Written 24.02.2019
[516] D. Reardon, G. Quinn: „Alice is Due for Reversal: Science Proves Its Reasoning Unsound”, 21.03.2019
[517] D. Carleton: “Showing ‘Meaningful Limits’ in Patent Claims”, 19.03.2019
[519] B. Stoll: “Courts Can Resolve Patent Eligibility Problems, Iancu Says”, ABA-IPL, 12.04.2019
[520] S. Schindler:“ Andrei Iancu Will Resolve the PE-Problem as Required by Incentivizing Innovation”, ABA-IPL, publ. 22.04.2019
[522] CAFC, Decision in StrikeForce, 19.02.2019
[523] USSC: PfC in HP v. Berkheimer, 28.09.2018
[524] USSC: PfC in Hikma v. Vanda, 27.12.2018
[525] CAFC, Decision in Cleveland v. True Health, 01.04.2019
[526] S. Schindler: “The Congress’s New § 101 Initiative Accelerates Consolidating & Improving the PE Notion Vastly Agreed”, publ.16.05.2019
[527] T. Tillis, C.Coons, D. Collins, H. Johnson, S. Stivers: “Press Release”, publ. 17.04.2019
[528] J. Nurton: “Iancu Calls on CAFC to Fix Sect. 101 Problem”, IP WATCHDOG, 02.05.2019
[529] G. Quinn: “Iancu: PTO Guidance Gets 101 Right; Time for Courts to Follow Suit”, IP WDOG, 07.05.2019
[530] A. Iancu: “Statement delivered before the US House Subcommittee on Courts, IP, and the Internet Committee on the Judiciary”, DC, 09.05.2019
[531] M. Marello: „Urge the Drafters of the New Section 101 to Support Inventor-Friendly Reform”, IP WHATCHDOG, 13.05.2019
[536] S. Schindler: “The Congressional Committee’s PE Initiative Confirms the USPTO’s 2019 PE-Guideline (almost) ─ i.e., the Latter’s Vastly Agreed § 101 Meaning Requires a Further Detail for being PE[526] ─ “, publ. 01.06.2019
[537] S. Schindler: ”Vagueness & Clustering: Fine in Politics ─ not in SPL.”, publ. 22.06.2019
[538] M. Borella: "Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property Holds Hearings on Rev. to 35 U.S.C. §101", PATENT DOCS, 17.06.2019
[539] J. Berg: "DNA Patents Revisited", Science Journal, 19.06.2019
[540] S. Schindler: “Andrei Iancu’s PTO-PE-2019-GuideLine Approaches the Frame­work ─ Broadly Agreed! The P. R. by Sens. Tillis & Coons ─ about the CAFC’s PE Uncertainties ─ Promises Rapid Relief.”, publ. 15.07.2019
[541] Tillis, Coons: “What We Learned at Patent Reform Hearings”, publ. 24.06.2019
[542] A. Iancu: “The Current State of Innovativity within the Legal System ─ Views on Evolving Protection for IPRs in the US from the USPTO and the Courts.”, NYIPLA, publ. 21.06.2019
[543] B. Stoll: “Update on 35 USC § 101 & Recent Legislation”, publ. June 2019
[544] Sens. Tillis, Coons: “Statement on key Federal Circuit decision, con­ti­nu­ed uncertainty about patent eligibility”, Press Release, 08.07.2019
[545] S. Schindler, D. Schoenberg, J. Schulze, R. Wetzler: „Claim Interpretation & Claim Construction for ETCIs: From Metaphysics&Metarationality to Mathematics. Patents on ETCIs Enabling Both are in Courts Enforceable!, publ. 27.07.2019
[546] CAFC: Athena vs. Mayo, 03.07.2019
[547] E. Malak: “Beyond 101: An Inventor’s Plea for Comprehensive Reform of the U.S. Patent System.”, IP WATCHDOG, 08.07.2019

             R. Davis: „Iancu Says USPTO Patent Eligibility Guidance Bringing Clarity”, Law360, 24.07.2019

[550] S. Schindler: “A Comment on Two Heavyweight Letters to the Congressional Subcommittee on IP”, publ. 05.08.2019
[551] S. Schindler: “The ‘Director’s-Forum-on-AI-in-Patenting’ is a Brilliant Idea ─ as to the Point.”, publ. on 01.09.2019
[552] S. Schindler: “CAFC’s Anew Legal Errors in Its ETCIs’ PE-Decisions Need Supreme Court Clarification.”, publ. 15.10.2019
[553] L. Peter: “USPTO announces FRN on artificial intelligence patent issues”, 26.08.2019
[554] G. Quinn: “A Strange Evolution: The Federal Circuit Has Entered the Theater of the Absurd”, IPWATCHDOG, 26.09.2019
[555] CAFC, Decision in Chamberlain vs. TTI, 21.08.2019
[556] USSC: PfC in StrikeForce
[557] UC Berkeley: “PR Largest CRISPR Portfolio”, 08.10.2019
[559] CAFC, Decision in AAM vs. Neapco, 03.10.2019
[560] A. Iancu: “Request for Comments on Patenting Artificial Inventions”, 21.08.2019
[561] W. Xie: “Examining Confusion Between the Chamberlain & Berkheimer CAFC Decisions”, 09.09.2019, IPWATCHDOG
[562] S.Schindler: “CAFC’s & USPTO’s ETCI-Patenting Fails Rationalizing Part of Supreme Court’s PE Requirement.”, publ. 24.10.2019
[565] FCBA Conference “Innovation and IP Leadership, …..”, Honolulu, 15.10.2019
[566] USPTO: The 2019 § 101 October PE Guideline[504], 18.10.2019
[567] D. Crouch: “PTO Guidance: Bridging the Swamp”, 18.10.2019
[568] M. Borella: “USPTO Publishes Update to Its Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”, 17.10.2019
[569] WIPO: “World Intellectual Property Indicators 2019”
[570] S. Schindler: “The US SPL and Its ETCIs are Deterministic Mathematics ─ i.e. Applied Mathematics.”, publ.31.10.2019
[571] S. Pierce: “PE of Diagnostic Tools: Utility as the Key to Unlocking Section 101”, 27.10.2019, IP WATCHDOG
[572] S. Schindler: “No 101-Panel as Any Other”, publ. 04.11.2019
[573] S. Schindler: “An Unnoticed AI Requ. Met by the Supreme Court’s PE Philosophy ...”, publ. 09.12.2019 Paper Title: „A Hitherto Unnoticed AI Requirement Met by the Supreme Court’s PE Philosophy ─ Implying: By the Supreme Court’s Framework a Preemptive ETCI is nPE. Not yet so by the USPTO’s 2019 PEG Update.“
[574] CAFC Decision in KPN v. Gemalto, 15.11.2019
[576] S. Schindler: “The  ‘AISPL-test mod(SPL) ≌ FSTP-Test’ is the Strong PE-Test ⩝ ETCIs …”,  pub. 03.01.2020
[577] S. Schindler: “The USPTO’s PE-Guidance is still Mute about ‘Wild Preemptivity’ ─ …”, pub. 19.12.2019
[578] DoJ: AB in SC as to Berkheimer, pub. 06.12.2019
[579] DoJ: AB in SC as to HIKMA, pub. 06.12.2019
[580] HP PfC in SC as to Berkheimer, pub. 28.09.2018
[581] Athena: PfC in SC as to Mayo, pub. 01.10.2019
[582] Athena: PfC/Resp. in SC as to Mayo, pub. 9.12.2019
[583] HIKMA PfC in SC as to VANDA, pub. 27.12.2018
[584] B.Grant: “… life science has moved us closer to a complete understanding of what makes us human …”, The Scientist, 20.12.2019
[585] D. Kwon: “Hundreds of CRISPR patents have been granted … and the number of applications continues to grow at a rapid pace.”, The Scientist, 15.07.2019
[586] S. Schindler: “AI-testing an ETCI Warrants Much Better Information than its PE-Test …”, pub. 09.01.2020
[587] AIPLA: Reply to USPTO’s AI-Enquiry
[588] AIPPI: Reply to USPTO’s AI-Enquiry
[589] AUTM: Reply to USPTO’s AI-Enquiry
[590] CCIA: Reply to USPTO’s AI-Enquiry
[591] EFF: Reply to USPTO’s AI-Enquiry
[592] IEEE: Reply to USPTO’s AI-Enquiry
[593] IPO: Reply to USPTO’s AI-Enquiry
[594] R STREET: Reply to USPTO’s AI-Enquiry
[595] T. Rue: Reply to USPTO’s AI-Enquiry
[596] S. Schindler: “AI Facilitates Testing ⩝ ETCI for PE & PA ─ Automat. or by AI-Theorem”, pub. 10.03.2020
[597] WIPO Draft Issues Paper on Intellectual Property Policy and Artificial Intelligence, 13.12.2019
[598] Max Planck Institute: “On the Draft Issues Paper of the WIPO on IP Policy and AI”, 11.02.2020
[599] CAFC: Oracle vs Google, 27.3.2018
[600] Google`s Cert. Petition to the USSC in Google v Oracle, 24.6.2019, granted on 15.11.2019
[601] Amicus Brief to the USSC in Google v Oracle, 27.9.2019
[603] S. Schindler: “Patenting / Copyrighting / Trademarking APIs ─ in Mathe. AI View”, publ. 26.03.2020
[604] S. Schindler_The Hard Need to Scientize COVID-19 Patents, e.g. the Gilead (Remdesivir) Patent_publ. 30.04.2020
[605] Clarke et al.: “Methods for Treating …& Coronaviridae Virus Infections”, Pat.# US 10,251,904 B2
[606] R.Harasimowicz: “The Global Patent Race for a COVID-19 Vaccine’, The Nat. Law Review, 24.03.20
[607] J. Wang: ‘Race against the Virus: COVID-19 Clinical Trials of Pharm. Pats. In Taiwan’, IAM, 25.03.20
[608] A. Rutschmann: ‘Coronavirus Vaccine Development: Systemic Failures in Vaccine Innovation’, 21.03.20
[609] M. Alves (O. Calvo Ärzte ohne Grenzen): ‘Open Letter to Gilead …..Access to Remdesivir”, 30.03.2020
[612] IBM’s & Microsoft’s statements about opening their patent databases within then COVID-19pledge.

             Microsoft Blog_Microsoft commits patents to help fight COVID-19

[613] REMDESIVIR: US WIKIPEDIA
[614] (Talk:)COVID-19 vaccine: US WIKIPEDIA
[615] CAFC: Decision in Illumina & Sequenom v. Ariosa Diagnostics”, 17.03.20
[616] D. Crouch: “Sequenom Back Again: This time Patent Eligible”, Patently-O, 17.03.2020
[617] E. McDermott: “USPTO Chief Economist Analyses Effects of §101/PEG”, IPWatchdog, 23.04.2020
[618] P. Michel, J. Battaglia: “Flaws in the Supreme Court’s §101 Precedent and Available Ways to Correct Them”, 27.04.2020
[619] S. Schindler: “The Meaning is of Any ETCI’s ‘Appl.’, its ‘Inventive Con.’, and their Scientif.”, publ. 12.05.2020
[620] R. Eastman et al.: “Remdevisir: A Review of Its Discovery & Development ….”, ACS, 05.05.2020
[621] S. Schindler: “Patent Business – Before Shake-up”, publ. 14.04.2021
[622] S. Schindler: „The CAFC’s ETCI Precedents is of MetaPhysical SPL – Yet the USSC Requires ETCI Precedents to be of Rational SPL. As Needed by Vaccine Variants for COVID-19ETCI Mutants!“, publ. 02.03.2021
[623] W. Xie: „Examining_Confusion Between the Chamberlain and Berkheimer Decisions at the CAFC“, IPWATCHDOG, 09.09.2019
[624] K. Noonan: „Federal Circuit Hands Down Modified Opinion in Illumina. v. Ariosa“, PATENT DOCS, 03.08.2020
[625] R.Tapscott: „Illumina v. Ariosa-En Banc Rehearing Denied Patents Again Upheld on Rehearing“, IPWATCHDOG, 04.08.2020
[627] S. Schindler: „‘Sequenced Patent Examination’ can’t Fix the USPTO’s (& CAFC’s) § 101 Errors“, publ. 19.04.2021
[628] „S.Schindler: “– §101 / Patent-Eligibility (PE) –Only for CIs (‘(nonrefined)Claimed Inventions’) or also for ETCIs (‘(refined)EmergingTechnology CIs’)? Targeting SARS CoV-2’s vaccines”, publ. 17.102022*)”
[629] D. Shores: “The mRNA IP and Competitive Landscape …”, IP WATCHDOG, 11.04.2021
[631] S. Schindler: “An Easy Question About § 101”, publ. 30.05.2021
[632] B. Sorge: „Einstein, Anschütz und der Kieler Kreiselkompass“, LBG Nr.2/2007
[633] K. Kariko & U. Sahin: ”Meth. for Reducing. Immunogenicity of RNA”, BIONTECH, US Pat Appl.. 2020/..629 A1
[635] U .Sahin: “COVID.-19 vacc. BNT162b1 elicits human antibody & TH1 T cell resp.”, NATURE; 22.10.2020
[636] T. Schlake & A. Thess: “Modif. RNA with Decr. Immunostim. Props’, CUREVAC, US Pat. Appl. 2021/…124 A1
[637] G. Claramella et al.:”Nucleic Acid Vaccines”, MODERNA TX, US Pat. Appl. 2021/…467 A1
[638] J. Langedijk: “Comp. & Meth. for Preventing & Treating SARS-COV-2.”, JANSSEN (J&J), US Pat. Appl., 2021/…170
[639] K. Beguir, U .Sahin et al “Early Comp. Detec. of Potent. High Risk SARS-CoV-2 Variants”, InstaDeep, 27.12.2021
[640] Sen.Tillis, Coons, Hirono, Cotton: Patent Eligibility Study Letter, 03.05.2021
[641] IP Watchdog_In Written Responses to Senators Questions Vidal Supports Iancus 101 Guidance 'In Principle'
[642] W. Garcia-Beltran et al: “mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine boosters induce neutralizing …”, 03.02.2022, Cell, Elsevier
[643] E. Dolgin_Pan-coronavirus vaccine pipeline takes form_19.04.2022_natureNEWS
[644] L. Murr: “Sequencing Patent Testing”, IP WATCHDOG, 23.03.2021

Posted on 04/28/2014 |

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Posts

Blog powered by Typepad

About

Feedback & Suggestions

Contact us via eMail or call +49 30 39928233