Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Current Dilemma and Future of Software Patenting

  • Article
  • Published:
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The unprecedented division over patent eligibility based on the “abstract idea” construct among the courts and judges in the Alice v. CLS case, the post-Alice contradictory decisions and the trend of rejecting or invalidating software patents, as well as the uncertainty about the concept of “computer program as such” (or “per se”) in Europe and China, present a chaotic reality and serious dilemma as to the future direction of the software patenting regime around the world. The recent revisions to patent examination guidelines by the patent offices in the US, Europe and China, particularly the “grouping” of “abstract ideas” by the USPTO, providing examples of a “further technical effect” by the EPO, and distinguishing a “computer program per se” and “computer-implemented inventions” by the CNIPA, although helpful in patent examinations, cannot solve the root problem and fix the dilemma. A more general definition, or a “safe harbour”, for the “abstract idea” or computer program “as such” is needed. In addition, to prevent patent trolls and promote true software innovation, the scope and length of software patent protection should be limited, e.g. allowing only the means of implementation but not the function to be patented; and granting 10 years of utility-model-type or sui generis protection. All the above proposed reforms should be undertaken at the international level, e.g. by adopting a Software Treaty under the auspices of the WIPO, because the software patent dilemma is a global one that deserves an international solution, especially in the age of the internet where most of the software patents cover borderless internet technologies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Internationalet al., 573 U.S. 208, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).

  2. These decisions include both US federal courts’ decisions and the decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. See Nazeer (2018).

  3. Ibid.

  4. Ibid., see also Electronic Frontier Foundation (2015), Goetz (2015).

  5. Nouri (2018).

  6. Rawles (2017).

  7. Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012).

  8. Ibid.

  9. See Alice case, supra note 1.

  10. For example, Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C. (Fed. Cir. 2016); Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics LLC (Fed. Cir. 2017).

  11. In this paper, the terms “software” and “computer program” are interchangeable.

  12. Some have argued that software should not even be protected by copyright because “copyright is not supposed to be about functionality”. Paul Goldstein’s statement in an interview by John Roemer, “Copyright’s highway take 2”, Stanford Lawyer, Issue 98/Vol. 52/No. 2, at 34.

  13. See the discussion in section 3.2.

  14. The revised guidance was released on 4 January 2019, see USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2018-28282.pdf, see the discussion in section 3.2.1.

  15. Marty Goetz (2011).

  16. Gottschalk v. Bensen, 409 U.S. 63 (1972).

  17. Gottschalk v. Bensen, ibid.

  18. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978).

  19. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981).

  20. Ibid.

  21. For example, in Paine et al v. Merrill Lynch et al., 564 F. Supp. 1358 (1983), a patent was awarded for a computer program allowing data processing of a financial management system.

  22. In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526 (1994).

  23. In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

  24. Williams (2005).

  25. State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (1998). The CAFC held as follows: “Today, we hold that the transformation of data, representing discrete dollar amounts, by a machine through a series of mathematical calculations into a final share price, constitutes a practical application of a mathematical algorithm, formula, or calculation, because it produces ‘a useful, concrete and tangible result’ – a final share price momentarily fixed for recording and reporting purposes and even accepted and relied upon by regulatory authorities and in subsequent trades”.

  26. Amazon.com v. Barnesandnoble.com, 239 F.3d 1243 (2001). The district court held that the 1-click program was patentable, but this decision was reversed by the CAFC because prior art for the program had been found. After the CAFC’s decision, the parties reached a settlement in early 2002.

  27. In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (2008).

  28. Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010). The Supreme Court said that the “machine-or-transformation” test shall not be the sole test of patentability although it is “a useful and important clue … for determining whether some claimed inventions are processes under s. 101”.

  29. CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2011).

  30. Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

  31. See section 2 above.

  32. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, ibid., at 1.

  33. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 768 F. Supp.2d 221, 252 (DC 2011).

  34. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 685 F.3d 1341, 1352, 1356 (2012).

  35. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), at 4.

  36. Ibid., at 1.

  37. Specifically, there are three issues to be addressed: (1) what test should the court use to decide whether a computer-implemented invention is a patent-ineligible abstract idea; (2) whether the presence of a computer in a claim could ever make patent-ineligible subject matter patentable; and (3) whether method, system, and media claims should be considered equivalent under § 101.

  38. A plurality opinion does not mean a majority opinion, but the opinion that receives more support than any other opinion.

  39. Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012).

  40. Mayo v. Prometheus, ibid., at 4.

  41. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International et al., 573 U.S. 208, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), at 1.

  42. Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir, 2013).

  43. Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, No. 10-1544 (Fed. Cir., 14 Nov. 2014).

  44. Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2017).

  45. Smart Systems Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Authority, 873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017), at 19.

  46. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F. Supp.3d 1167, 1176 (C.D. Cal. 2014).

  47. Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., (2016) U.S. App. LEXIS 8699, 2016 WL 2756255 (Fed. Cir., 12 May 2016).

  48. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

  49. Ibid., at 9.

  50. Ibid., at 10.

  51. McRO Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., Case 15-1080 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

  52. Ibid., at 19.

  53. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

  54. Ibid., at 11.

  55. Finjan Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

  56. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

  57. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), at 20.

  58. Content Extraction v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014), at 8.

  59. Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2016), at 17.

  60. Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), at 8–9.

  61. Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905 (Fed. Cir. 2017), at 10.

  62. Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc, 876 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017), at 11.

  63. Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66 (2012), at 2–3.

  64. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018), at 12.

  65. Ibid., at 14.

  66. HP Inc. v. Berkheimer, Petition for a writ of certiorari, at i, https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-415/65216/20180928162630738_36823%20pdf%20Hong%20I%20br.pdf.

  67. Diamond v. Diehr, 45 U.S. 175 (1981), at 7.

  68. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), at 7.

  69. Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66 (2012), at 21.

  70. Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2016), at 16.

  71. Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), at 9.

  72. Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905 (Fed. Cir. 2017), at 12.

  73. Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2016), at 15.

  74. Dane (2018a) 1–16, at 8.

  75. Dane (2018b) 5–15, at 7.

  76. Dane (2018a) 1–16, at 10.

  77. Diamond v. Diehr, 45 U.S. 175 (1981), at 6.

  78. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), at 12.

  79. Finjan Inc v. Blue Coat Systems Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018), at 6.

  80. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018), at 9.

  81. Dane (2018a) 1–16, at 9.

  82. EPO 2018 Guidelines for Examination, “Index for computer-implemented inventions (CII)”, defines a CII as “one which involves the use of a computer, computer network or other programmable apparatus, where one or more features are realised wholly or partly by means of a computer program” (G-II, 3.6), seehttps://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/j.htm.

  83. Ballardini (2008) 563–575, at 565–566.

  84. T 52/85.

  85. T 258/03 and T 154/04. See also European Patent Office, Guidelines for Examination, Art. 3.6, para. 4.

  86. See T 1173/97.

  87. See T 424/03, and EPO Guidelines for Examination, Art. 3.6, paras. 3 and 7.

  88. T 0208/84.

  89. Ballardini (2008) 563–575, at 565.

  90. T 0208/84.

  91. Ibid.

  92. Ibid.

  93. T 0026/86, Koch and Sterzel, 1987.

  94. T 0038/86, Text processing/IBM, 1989.

  95. T 0026/86, Koch and Sterzel, 1987.

  96. T 0038/86, Text processing/IBM, 1989.

  97. Ibid.

  98. Ballardini (2008) 563–575, at 565.

  99. Art. 56 EPC.

  100. Bently and Sherman (2014), at 455.

  101. T 0935/97 – 3.5.1.

  102. T 1173/97 – 3.5.1.

  103. T 0931/195 Controlling Pension Benefit System/PBS Partnership, 2001.

  104. T 0258/03, Hitachi/Auction method, 2004.

  105. Bently and Sherman (2014), at 465.

  106. Nettleton (2010) 267–270, at 268.

  107. T 0931/195 Controlling Pension Benefit System/PBS Partnership, 2001.

  108. EPO Guidelines for Examination 2018, Part G, Chapter II-2, para. 2.

  109. Ballardini (2008) 563–575, at 566.

  110. T 0258/03, Hitachi/Auction method, 2004.

  111. Astron Clinica v. Comptroller General of Patents, [2008] R.P.C. 14, 339–355, at 351.

  112. G-II, 3.6, Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office (November 2017).

  113. T 0931/195 Controlling Pension Benefit System/PBS Partnership, 2001.

  114. Sterckx and Cockbain (2010) 366–402, at 368.

  115. In this decision, no “direct” or “indirect” technical effect was distinguished, nor was the computer program claimed by itself or as a record on a carrier.

  116. EPO Enlarged Board Referral on Software Patents, 24 October 2008, http://ipkitten.blogspot.hk/2008/10/epo-enlarged-board-referral-on-software.html.

  117. Opinion of 12 May 2010, EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal, Case No. G 0003/08, http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/DC6171F182D8B65AC125772100426656/$File/G3_08_Opinion_12_05_2010_en.pdf.

  118. Symbian v. Comptroller General, [2008] EWCA Civ 1066.

  119. Lantana Ltd. v. UK Comptroller General of Patents, [2003] EWHC 2673. See also HTC v. Apple, [2013] EWCA Civ 451, and Aerotel Ltd. v. Telco Holdings Ltd., [2006] EWCA Civ 1371. The UK Court of Appeals developed a four-step test to assess the “technical contribution”: (1) construe the claim; (2) identify the actual contribution; (3) determine whether the contribution falls solely within the scope of excluded subject matter; and (4) determine whether the contribution is actually technical in nature.

  120. Decision T 154/04 of 15 November 2006, Reason 13. The board wrote that: “The ‘technical effect approach (with the rider)’ applied in the Aerotel/Macrossan judgement is irreconcilable with the European Patent Convention also for the further reason that it presupposes that ‘novel and inventive purely excluded matter does not count as a ‘technical contribution’ (Aerotel/Macrossan, e.g. para. No. 26(2)). This has no basis in the Convention and contravenes conventional patentability criteria”.

  121. The law was adopted in 1984, and has so far been amended three times, in 1992, 2000, and 2008 respectively, seehttp://www.sipo.gov.cn/zcfg/zcfgflfg/flfgzl/fl_zl/index.htm.

  122. The earliest version was released in 2001, available at http://www.cnpat.com/cn_pat/exam_guide_2001.htm. The Guidelines have three official versions, released in 2001, 2006, and 2010 respectively. The Guidelines were also amended in 2008, 2009 (three times), 2013, 2014, and 2017 respectively, available at http://www.sipo.gov.cn/zhfwpt/zlsqzn_pt/zlfssxzjsczn/index.htm.

  123. Sec. 3.2, Chapter 1, Part II of the Guidelines (2001); Sec. 4.2, Chapter 1, Part II of the Guidelines (2006, 2010).

  124. Art. 2.2 prescribes that: “The ‘invention’ refers to a new technical solution developed for a product, process or the improvement thereof”.

  125. Sec. 4.2, Chapter 1, Part II of the Guidelines (2010).

  126. Sec. 3.2, Chapter 1, Part II of the Guidelines (2001); Sec. 4.2, Chapter 1, Part II of the Guidelines (2006, 2010).

  127. Id.

  128. See the Guidelines, Chapter 9, Sec. 1, para. 3.

  129. Sec. 1, Chapter 9, Part II of the Guidelines.

  130. Sec. 2, Chapter 9, Part II of the Guidelines. The Guidelines use the term “invention relating to computer programs”.

  131. Eric Guttag (2014).

  132. For example, software patents were invalidated in the following cases: Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, No. 13-1663 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Buysafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350); Eclipse IP, LLC v. McKinley Equipment Corporation, No. 15-1023 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

  133. Gene Quinn (2014).

  134. A post on the internet said, “My business partners and I are filing for a UK patent. The patent is for software and has an application number.… Throughout the entire time, we have been dealing with our patent lawyer we have been unable to get out of him a straight answer on UK software patents. This is likely due to the nature of the invention and the extremely complicated guidelines in the UK. Most people tend to point you to Aerotel v. Telco and Macrossan as they don’t really know the answer themselves”. See Ask Patent, http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3183/uk-software-patent.

  135. For a general discussion of a patent’s role in innovation, see Machlup and Penrose (1950); and Li (2011); see also Coriat (2002) 1491–507.

  136. Amici brief of Google, et al. in the case of Bilski v. David Kappos, at 2–3, http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_09_10_08_964_RespondentAmCu7FinancialCorps.authcheckdam.pdf (accessed 4 Sept. 2015).

  137. Hingtjens (2007).

  138. For example, Eric Goldman provided some interesting ways to fix software patents. See Goldman (2013).

  139. Graham et al. (2009) 1255. Specifically, the statistics in the survey showed that about two-thirds of the 700 software companies surveyed neither had nor were seeking patents for their inventions. They rated patents as the least important tools among seven options to attain a competitive advantage in the marketplace. Even software startups viewed patents as an insignificant incentive to invest in innovation. The cost of obtaining and enforcing a patent was the number one factor affecting software firms’ decision not to seek a patent. More than 40% of the firms surveyed cited the un-patentability of the invention as a factor.

  140.  Quinn (2015a).

  141. Ibid.

  142. See section 2.1 above.

  143. This expression is borrowed from Fritz Machlup’s conclusion on patent systems in general, in which he stated, “since we have had a patent system for a long time, it would be irresponsible, on the basis of our present knowledge, to recommend abolishing it”. Fritz Machlup (1958), “An economic review of the patent system”, Study No. 15 of Comm. on judiciary, subcomm. on patents, trademarks, and copyright, 85th Cong., 2d Sess.

  144. See sections 2.1 and 2.2 above.

  145. The Reference Sheet was repealed by the revised Guidance in January 2019, and the webpage http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/abstract_idea_examples.pdf no longer exists. The revised Guidance can be found at: Department of Commerce, USPTO 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance [Docket No PTO-P-2018-0053], https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/01/07/2018-28282/2019-revised-patent-subject-matter-eligibility-guidance.

  146. Notice of Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, seehttps://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-01-07/pdf/2018-28282.pdf.

  147. See infra note 160, at 5.

  148. Ibid., at 9–11.

  149. Ibid., at 25.

  150. https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2018-28283.pdf.

  151. EPO Examination Guidelines 2018, G-II, 3.6, para. 1.

  152. More specifically, “A ‘further technical effect’ is a technical effect going beyond the ‘normal’ physical interactions between the program (software) and the computer (hardware) on which it is run. The normal physical effects of the execution of a program, e.g. the circulation of electrical currents in the computer, are not in themselves sufficient to confer technical character to a computer program (T 1173/97 and G 3/08).” Ibid., para. 2.

  153. Ibid., para. 3.

  154. Ibid., para. 5.

  155. Ibid., G-II, 3.6.1.

  156. Ibid. G-II, 3.6, para 6.

  157. This amendment was publicly consulted under the “Notice on Public Consultation on ‘Draft Amendment to Guidelines for Patent Examination’ (Draft for Comment)” issued by the then State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) (after 28 August 2018 SIPO was renamed the China National Intellectual Property Administration or CNIPA) on 27 October 2016. Seehttp://www.sipo.gov.cn/gztz/1099153.htm; see also Decision on amendment to the “Guidelines for Patent Examination” (2017) (Order No. 74). http://www.sipo.gov.cn/zcfg/zcfgflfg/flfgzl/zlbmgz/1020135.htm.

  158. Richard Huang (2017)

  159. See, e.g., Brachmann (2017).

  160. Department of Commerce, USPTO 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance [Docket No PTO-P-2018-0053], at 22–23. Seehttps://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2018-28282.pdf.

  161. See section 3.2.1 above.

  162. See section 2.3 of this article above and supra note 128.

  163. See section 3.2.1 of this article above and supra note 148.

  164. The “grouping” has been hailed as marking “a positive step forward for patent owners, both in terms of clarity of the examination procedure and opportunities to argue for eligibility of patent claims”. See Boumil et al. (2019).

  165. See section 3.2.1 of this article above and supra note 149.

  166. Quinn (2019).

  167. See section 2.3 of this article above and supra note 128.

  168. Macmillan English Dictionary, (2007 edn.), at 6.

  169. See  supra note 148. Some commentators also concurred with this view. See Gene Quinn (2019).

  170. For example, in Japan, software-related inventions are patentable only when there is “a creation of technical ideas utilizing a law of nature”. See “Examination guidelines for patent and utility model in Japan (requirements for patentability)” (pdf), jpo.go.jp. pp. 1–3. In South Africa, a program for a computer as such is excluded from patent protection under Sec. 25(2) of the Patents Act. Patents Act, No. 57 of 1978, as amended Sec. 25(3) (pdf), 26 April 1978.

  171. See CNIPA Guidelines, Part II, Chapter 9, sec. 1, para. 3, supra note 128.

  172. See the discussion in section 2.1.3.3 of this article about the overlap between § 101 and §§ 102, 103.

  173. See the discussion in section 2.2.3.

  174. USPTO 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, III-A-2, at 19.

  175. Liu (2014).

  176. Ibid.

  177. Ibid.

  178. Ibid.

  179. Ibid.

  180. Mark Lemley (2012).

  181. Ibid.

  182. Ibid.

  183. See USPTO, Examining computer-implemented functional claim limitations for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 [Docket No. PTO-P-2018-0059].

  184. Ibid., at 6.

  185. Ibid., at 10.

  186. Singer (2019).

  187. USPTO, “Performance and accountability report, fiscal year 2015”, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USPTOFY15PAR.pdf.

  188. Posner (2012).

  189. Eric Goldman (2012)

  190. TRIPS Art. 27.1 requires that patents “be available and patent rights enjoyable without discrimination as to the place of invention, the field of technology and whether products are imported or locally produced”.

  191. TRIPS Art. 33 provides: “The term of protection available shall not end before the expiration of a period of twenty years counted from the filing date”.

  192. This section was repealed in 2001.

  193. See “DS114: Canada – Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products”, WT/DS114/R, 2000, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds114_e.htm.

  194. Ibid., at 170, para. 7.91.

  195. See Brian Love (2012).

  196. Brian Love (2011).

  197. Stallman (2012).

  198. Eric Goldman (2012).

  199. Schestowitz (2018).

  200. Burk and Lemley (2003) 1575–1696, at 1620.

  201. Some patent attorneys have questioned whether the trend of rejecting software patents brought by Alice would affect innovation in the entire industry. See Gene Quinn (2015b).

  202. Dan L. Burk and Mark A. Lemley (2005).

  203. Ibid.

  204. Mark Lemley, supra note 180.

  205. See supra note 150.

  206. See Eric Goldman (2012).

  207. Guttag (2012).

  208. Under TRIPS Art. 27 (3), computer programs (or software) are not in the list of exclusions. Therefore, it has been interpreted that computer programs are patentable under TRIPS.

  209. WIPO webpage at http://www.wipo.int/portal/en/index.html.

  210. WIPO Internet Treaties consist of two treaties: the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonogram Treaty (WPPT) adopted in 1996.

  211. For a full introduction and discussion of this model provision, see Miyashita (1991) 41.

  212. Seehttp://www.valimaki.com/org/docs/wipo_draft_treaty_1983.pdf.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. JSD and JSM (Stanford); Associate Professor and Director of LLM in Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law, Faculty of Law, University of Hong Kong, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong

    Yahong Li

Authors
  1. Yahong Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yahong Li.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

An early draft of this article was presented at the PKU-Stanford-Oxford Internet Law and Public Policy Conference held on 23 November 2014, when the Alice case had just been decided. The author is grateful to Professor Paul Goldstein and the other conference participants’ comments on my presentation. The article has been updated with the research assistance of Mr. Wang Chuandao. The author thanks the anonymous reviewers for their critical and insightful comments and suggestions which helped strengthen this article in many aspects. All errors, however, are the author’s own.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, Y. The Current Dilemma and Future of Software Patenting. IIC 50, 823–859 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-019-00841-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-019-00841-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation