DOCSLIB.ORG

Overview of Section 101 Patent Cases Decided After Alice V

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

CHART OF POST-ALICE CASES (as of March 1, 2019) OVERVIEW PAGE I. CLAIMS INELIGIBLE UNDER ALICE ........................................................................................................................................... 2 A. Software/Tech Patents (359 total) 1. Federal Circuit Decisions (52 total) ....................................................................................................................................2 2. District Court Decisions (307 total) ..................................................................................................................................24 B. Biotechnology/Life Sciences Patents (37 total) 1. Federal Circuit Decisions (6 total) .....................................................................................................................................86 2. District Court Decisions (31 total) .....................................................................................................................................90 II. CLAIMS ELIGIBLE UNDER ALICE ............................................................................................................................................ 99 A. Software/Tech Patents (170 total) 1. Federal Circuit Decisions (13 total) ...................................................................................................................................99 2. District Court Decisions (157) .........................................................................................................................................105 B. Biotechnology/Life Sciences Patents (27 total) 1. Federal Circuit Decisions (3 total) ...................................................................................................................................147 2. District Court Decisions (24 total) ...................................................................................................................................150 III. ALICE DETERMINATION PREMATURE .............................................................................................................................. 157 A. Software/Tech Patents (97 total) 1. Federal Circuit Decisions (2 total) ...................................................................................................................................157 2. District Court Decisions (95 total) ...................................................................................................................................159 B. Biotechnology/Life Sciences Patents (15 total)…………………………………………………………………………….178 IV. COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW FINAL DECISIONS AFTER ALICE (113 total) .......................................... 182 V. FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS ON CBM REVIEW FINAL WRITTEN DECISIONS (13 total) ................................... 200 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP I. CLAIMS INELIGIBLE UNDER ALICE1 A. Software/Tech Patents 1. Federal Circuit Decisions CASE DATE PETITION FOR PETITION FOR HOLDING REHEARING WRIT OF EN BANC CERTIORARI Digitech Image Techs., 07/11/2014 No petition No petition Affirming the district court’s grant of summary LLC v. Elecs. For found found judgment on the basis that the asserted device profile Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d patent claims were ineligible. Held that a “device 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014) profile” within a digital image processing system “is not a tangible or physical thing and thus does not fall within any of the categories of eligible subject matter. I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL 08/15/2014 12/15/2014 10/05/2015 The majority opinion held that the asserted claims, Inc., 576 F. App’x 982 (denied) (denied) which related to a method of filtering Internet search (Fed. Cir. 2014) (non- results, were invalid as obvious. The majority did not precedential) address the issue of eligibility. However, Judge Mayer wrote in his concurrence that he would have also held that the claims were ineligible. Planet Bingo, LLC v. 08/26/2014 No petition No petition Affirming the district court’s grant of summary VKGS, LLC, 576 F. found found judgment on the basis that the asserted claims reciting App’x 1005 (Fed. Cir. “computer-aided methods and systems for managing 2014) (non-precedential) the game of bingo” were ineligible. Held that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of managing/playing a game of bingo, with no inventive concept. 1 Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (June 19, 2014). GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 2 CASE DATE PETITION FOR PETITION FOR HOLDING REHEARING WRIT OF EN BANC CERTIORARI buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, 09/03/2014 No petition No petition Affirming the district court’s grant of judgment on the Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. found found pleadings on the basis that the asserted claims, which Cir. 2014) recited “methods and machine-readable media encoded to perform steps for guaranteeing a party's performance of its online transaction,” were ineligible. Held that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of a “transaction performance guaranty,” with no inventive concept. Ultramercial, Inc. v. 11/14/2014 02/20/2015 06/30/2015 Affirming the district court’s grant of dismissal on the Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (denied) (denied) basis that the asserted claims, which recited a method (Fed. Cir. 2014) of distributing copyrighted materials over the Internet, were ineligible. Held that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of showing an advertisement before delivering free content. Further held that the recitation of “conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality, which is insufficient to supply an ‘inventive concept’” necessary to confer eligibility. Content Extraction & 12/23/2014 03/12/2015 10/05/2015 Affirming the district court’s grant of dismissal on the Transmission LLC v. (denied) (denied) basis that the asserted claims, which recited a method Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. of extracting data from hard copy documents using a Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343 scanner, recognizing information, and storing the (Fed. Cir. 2014) information, were ineligible. Held that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of “1) collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and 3) storing that recognized data in a memory. Held that the claims did not have an inventive concept because the “use of a scanner or other digitizing device to extract data from a document was well-known at the GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 3 CASE DATE PETITION FOR PETITION FOR HOLDING REHEARING WRIT OF EN BANC CERTIORARI time of filing, as was the ability of computers to translate the shapes of a physical page into typeface characters.” Allvoice Developments 05/22/2015 07/27/2015 12/14/2015 Affirming the district court’s grant of summary US, LLC v. Microsoft (denied) (denied) judgment on the basis that the asserted speech Corp., 612 F. App’x recognition product patent claims were ineligible. Held 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2015) that the claims merely recited “software instructions (non-precedential) without any hardware limitations.” OIP Technologies, Inc. v. 06/11/2015 08/13/2015 12/14/2015 Affirming the district court’s grant of dismissal on the Amazon.com, Inc., 788 (denied) (denied) basis that the asserted claims, which related to a price- F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. optimization method, were ineligible. Held that the 2015) claims were directed to the abstract concept of offer- based price optimization, with no inventive concept. Judge Mayer concurred, supporting the district court’s Section 101 determination on a motion to dismiss. Internet Patents Corp. v. 06/23/2015 No petition No petition Affirming the grant of dismissal of claims as ineligible, Active Network, Inc., 790 found found finding that they were directed to the abstract idea of F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. retaining information in the navigation of online forms, 2015) with no inventive concept. Also stated that “pragmatic analysis of § 101 is facilitated by considerations analogous to those of §§ 102 and 103 as applied to the particular case.” GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 4 CASE DATE PETITION FOR PETITION FOR HOLDING REHEARING WRIT OF EN BANC CERTIORARI Intellectual Ventures I 07/06/2015 No petition No petition Affirming the district court’s grant of summary LLC v. Capital One Bank found found judgment on the basis that the asserted claims were (USA), 792 F.3d 1363 ineligible. Held that certain claims were directed to the (Fed. Cir. 2015) abstract idea of tracking financial transactions to determine whether they exceed a pre-set spending limit, with no inventive concept. Held that certain other claims were directed to the abstract idea of tailoring information on a website based on the time of day of viewing, with no inventive concept. The opinion limited the holding of DDR Holdings, stating that DDR Holdings only stated that the claims at issue were eligible because they “(1) did not foreclose other ways of solving the problem, and (2) recited a specific series of steps that resulted in a departure from the routine and conventional sequence of events after the click of a hyperlink advertisement.” Vehicle Intelligence & 12/28/2015 No petition 05/31/2016 Affirming the district court’s grant of judgment on the Safety LLC v. Mercedes- found (denied) pleadings on the basis that claims directed to testing Benz USA, LLC, 635 F. vehicle operator for impairment (i.e., intoxication), and App’x 914 (Fed. Cir. then taking control of the vehicle if impairment is 2015) (non-precedential) detected, were ineligible. Held that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of testing operators of any kind
Recommended publications
  • Union Calendar No. 481 104Th Congress, 2D Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Report 104–879

    Union Calendar No. 481 104Th Congress, 2D Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Report 104–879

    1 Union Calendar No. 481 104th Congress, 2d Session ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± House Report 104±879 REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DURING THE ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 1(d) RULE XI OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES JANUARY 2, 1997.ÐCommitted to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 36±501 WASHINGTON : 1997 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman 1 CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado Wisconsin BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts BILL MCCOLLUM, Florida CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania HOWARD L. BERMAN, California HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina RICH BOUCHER, Virginia LAMAR SMITH, Texas JOHN BRYANT, Texas STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico JACK REED, Rhode Island ELTON GALLEGLY, California JERROLD NADLER, New York CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia BOB INGLIS, South Carolina MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia XAVIER BECERRA, California STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana JOSEÂ E. SERRANO, New York 2 MARTIN R. HOKE, Ohio ZOE LOFGREN, California SONNY BONO, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas FRED HEINEMAN, North Carolina MAXINE WATERS, California 3 ED BRYANT, Tennessee STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MICHAEL PATRICK FLANAGAN, Illinois BOB BARR, Georgia ALAN F. COFFEY, JR., General Counsel/Staff Director JULIAN EPSTEIN, Minority Staff Director 1 Henry J. Hyde, Illinois, elected to the Committee as Chairman pursuant to House Resolution 11, approved by the House January 5 (legislative day of January 4), 1995.
  • Uncertainty and the Standard of Patentability Robert P

    Uncertainty and the Standard of Patentability Robert P

    ARTICLE UNCERTAINTY AND THE STANDARD OF PATENTABILITY ROBERT P. MERGES" Table of Contents I. INTRODU CTION ................................................................................ 2 II. THE LEGAL STANDARD .................................................................. 4 A . Threshold Issues ............................................................................ 4 B. Doctrine .......................................................................................... 12 C. The Patent Standard and Races to Invent ................................. 15 D. Relationship Between Patent Standards and Patent Scop e ............................................................................................. .. 17 E. The Proposed Patent Standard ................................................... 19 II1. MODELING THE STANDARD: PATENTS AS INCENTIVES TO IN V EN T ........................................................................................ 20 A. A Formal Model of the Invention Process ............................... 20 B. Low Uncertainty Research and the Model ............................... 29 C. Incentives to Develop ................................................................. 32 D. Why Not Use Commercial Certainty as the Patentability Standard? ................................................. ................................... 33 E. Nonobviousness Doctrine and the Uncertainty-Based Model ............................................................................................. 34 F. Risk Aversion and High-Cost
  • Eligible Subject Matter at the Patent Office: an Empirical Study of the Influence of Alice on Patent Examiners and Patent Applicants

    Eligible Subject Matter at the Patent Office: an Empirical Study of the Influence of Alice on Patent Examiners and Patent Applicants

    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 2020 Eligible Subject Matter at the Patent Office: An Empirical Study of the Influence of Alice on Patent Examiners and Patent Applicants Jay P. Kesan Wang, Runhua Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Kesan, Jay P. Wang, Runhua, "Eligible Subject Matter at the Patent Office: An Empirical Study of the Influence of Alice on atentP Examiners and Patent Applicants" (2020). Minnesota Law Review. 3212. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/3212 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Article Eligible Subject Matter at the Patent Office: An Empirical Study of the Influence of Alice on Patent Examiners and Patent Applicants Jay P. Kesan† and Runhua Wang†† Introduction ............................................................................................................ 528 I. The Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank .................. 536 A. The Alice Decision Regarding Eligible Subject Matter ......... 537 1. Abstract Idea and Statutory Limits ..................................... 537 2. Implementation by the PTO ................................................... 543 B. Uncertainties in Eligible Subject Matter ...................................
  • Confusing Patent Eligibility

    Confusing Patent Eligibility

    CONFUSING PATENT ELIGIBILITY DAVID 0. TAYLOR* INTRODUCTION ................................................. 158 I. CODIFYING PATENT ELIGIBILITY ....................... 164 A. The FirstPatent Statute ........................... 164 B. The Patent Statute Between 1793 and 1952................... 166 C. The Modern Patent Statute ................ ..... 170 D. Lessons About Eligibility Law ................... 174 II. UNRAVELING PATENT ELIGIBILITY. ........ ............. 178 A. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs............ 178 B. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l .......... .......... 184 III. UNDERLYING CONFUSION ........................... 186 A. The Requirements of Patentability.................................. 186 B. Claim Breadth............................ 188 1. The Supreme Court's Underlying Concerns............ 189 2. Existing Statutory Requirements Address the Concerns with Claim Breadth .............. 191 3. The Supreme Court Wrongly Rejected Use of Existing Statutory Requirements to Address Claim Breadth ..................................... 197 4. Even if § 101 Was Needed to Exclude Patenting of Natural Laws and Phenomena, A Simple Statutory Interpretation Would Do So .................... 212 C. Claim Abstractness ........................... 221 1. Problems with the Supreme Court's Test................221 2. Existing Statutory Requirements Address Abstractness, Yet the Supreme Court Has Not Even Addressed Them.............................. 223 IV. LACK OF ADMINISTRABILITY ....................... ....... 227 A. Whether a
  • Myovant Sciences Ltd. 10K 2021 V1

    Myovant Sciences Ltd. 10K 2021 V1

    UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K (Mark One) ☒ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended March 31, 2021 or ☐ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from _______ to _______ Commission file number 001-37929 Myovant Sciences Ltd. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Bermuda 98-1343578 (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) Suite 1, 3rd Floor 11-12 St. James’s Square London SW1Y 4LB United Kingdom Not Applicable (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: +44 (207) 400 3351 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of each Class Trading Symbol Name of each exchange on which registered Common Shares, $0.000017727 par value per share MYOV New York Stock Exchange Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes No Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. Yes No Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
  • What Are the Costs and Benefits of Patent Systems?

    What Are the Costs and Benefits of Patent Systems?

    CENTRE FOR GOVERNANCE OF KNOWLEDGE AND DEVELOPMENT WORKING PAPER: OCTOBER 2008 What are the costs and benefits of patent systems? Hazel V J Moir This paper can be downloaded without charge from http://cgkd.anu.edu.au/menus/workingpapers.php Citation for non-commercial purposes is encouraged by the author Correspondence to: [email protected] Dr Hazel Moir Program Visitor Centre for Governance of Knowledge and Development Regulatory Institutions Network (RegNet) College of Asia and the Pacific The Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200 AUSTRALIA © Moir 2008 (citation for non-commercial purposes is encouraged) . What are the costs and benefits of patent systems?* Hazel V J Moir Program Visitor, Centre for Governance of Knowledge and Development Regulatory Institutions Network, College of Asia and the Pacific The Australian National University ABSTRACT There do not appear to be any cost-benefit assessments of the impact of patent systems, nor any data that can be used to directly assess the economic impact of patent systems. Discussions of patent policy therefore tend to be theoretical, and any evidence used is anecdotal rather than scientifically based. A wider search shows, however, that there is substantial empirical material on the costs and benefits of patent systems published in a very diverse range of journals and working papers. While these do not allow a full assessment of the economic impact of patent systems, they do provide useful evidence on many aspects of the impact of patent systems. This evidence is drawn together in this summary overview. The objective is to assist in a move towards an evidence-based discussion of patents as a central issue in innovation policy.
  • Formatting Guide: Colors & Fonts

    Formatting Guide: Colors & Fonts

    SAAS & CLOUD M&A AND VALUATION UPDATE Q1 2016 BOSTON CHICAGO LONDON LOS ANGELES NEW YORK ORANGE COUNTY PHILADELPHIA SAN DIEGO SILICON VALLEY TAMPA CONTENTS Section Page Introduction . Research Coverage: SaaS & Cloud 3 . Key Takeaways 4-5 M&A Activity & Multiples . M&A Dollar Volume 7 . M&A Transaction Volume 8-10 . LTM Revenue Multiples 11-12 . Revenue Multiples by Segment 13 . Highest Revenue Multiple Transaction for LTM 14 . Notable M&A Transactions 15 . Most Active Buyers 16-17 Public Company Valuation & Operating Metrics . SaaS & Cloud 125 Public Company Universe 19-20 . Recent IPOs 21 . Stock Price Performance 22 . LTM Revenue, EBITDA & P/E Multiples 23-25 . Revenue, EBITDA & EPS Growth 26-28 . Margin Analysis 29-30 . Best / Worst Performers 31-32 Notable Transaction Profiles 34-43 Public Company Trading & Operating Metrics 45-50 Technology & Telecom Team 52 1 INTRODUCTION RESEARCH COVERAGE: SAAS & CLOUD Capstone’s Technology & Telecom Group focuses its research efforts on the follow market segments: ENTERPRISE SAAS & MOBILE & WIRELESS CONSUMER INTERNET CLOUD • Analytics / Business Intelligence • Cloud & IT Infrastructure • Cloud Computing / Storage • Communication & Collaboration • Content Creation & Management • CRM & Customer Services • ERP, Supply Chain & Commerce CONSUMER IT & E-COMMERCE • Finance & Administration TELECOM HARDWARE • Human Resources • Marketing & Advertising • Software Conglomerates • Vertical Markets 3 KEY TAKEAWAYS – M&A ACTIVITY & MULTIPLES LTM M&A dollar volume continued to increase in Q1’16, representing
  • Terms and Conditions for Luigi's® Real Italian Ice Abominable Movie Offer

    Terms and Conditions for Luigi's® Real Italian Ice Abominable Movie Offer

    TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR LUIGI’S® REAL ITALIAN ICE ABOMINABLE MOVIE OFFER The LUIGI’S® Real Italian Ice Abominable Movie Offer (the “Offer”) begins 12:00 AM Eastern Time (“ET”) September 1, 2019 and ends 11:59 PM ET October 11, 2019 or when supplies are exhausted, whichever is sooner ("Offer Period"). Open only to legal residents of the 50 US & DC who (i) are 18 years of age or older (and have at least reached the age of majority in their state of residence) as of September 1, 2019; (ii) have a 2-way text messaging and photo-capable mobile phone with a data plan; and (iii) make a Qualifying Purchase (as described below). Void where prohibited by law. Subject to all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. Offer is sponsored by: LUIGI’S® Real Italian Ice, brand of J&J Snack Foods Corp. (“Sponsor”), 6000 Central Highway, Pennsauken, NJ 08109. To participate in the Offer, make a qualifying purchase of a minimum of two (2) specially-marked 6-cup boxes of participating LUIGI’S® Real Italian Ice products (“Participating Products”) in a single transaction at a participating retailer (“Participating Retailer(s)”) during the Offer Period (“Qualifying Purchase”). Online purchases do not qualify. See a list of Participating Products and Participating Retailers below. Using your mobile phone, take a photo of the entire purchase receipt (receipt must include date of purchase and the Qualifying Purchase items) and send the photo via text* message with the phrase “SOCOOL” to 47056 by 11:59 PM ET October 18, 2019.
  • What Is Hollywood Hiding?

    What Is Hollywood Hiding?

    WHAT IS HOLLYWOOD HIDING? How the entertainment industry downplays the danger to kids from smoking on screen Jonathan R. Polansky Onbeyond LLC, Fairfax, California Stanton A. Glantz, PhD University of California, San Francisco _______________________________ University of California, San Francisco This publication is available at https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3pw661mg April 2020 What is Hollywood Hiding? | 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • The U.S. Surgeon General has concluded that exposure to onscreen tobacco imagery causes young people to smoke. The U.S. CDC has projected that this exposure will recruit more than six million new young smokers in the U.S. in this generation, of whom two million will die from tobacco-induced diseases. • More than half of U.S. top-grossing films released since 2002 include smoking,1 including 51 percent of films in 2019. The number of tobacco incidents in youth-rated films has grown by 63% since 2015. • By 2019, three-quarters of U.S. households subscribed to at least one video-in-demand (VOD) channel. Films comprise the majority of the titles offered on popular video-on-demand (VOD) services, while TV series account for the majority of programming hours they offer. • Per capita, in 2019 films were viewed fourteen times more on digital media than in theaters. Advance notice to parents • Neither the Motion Picture Association (MPA) nor TV Parental Guidelines (TVPG) treat tobacco as an explicit rating factor. The MPA only applies its bland “smoking” descriptors to 13 percent of top-grossing youth-rated films with tobacco content. • A survey of nine popular VOD services finds that three VOD services do not display film and TV ratings reasons with their video content and six other VOD services show ratings reasons only after the user selects a film or TV show and the video is rolling.
  • B2W - COMPANHIA DIGITAL Publicly Held Company CNPJ/MF Nº 00.776.574/0006-60 NIRE 333.0029074-5

    B2W - COMPANHIA DIGITAL Publicly Held Company CNPJ/MF Nº 00.776.574/0006-60 NIRE 333.0029074-5

    B2W - COMPANHIA DIGITAL Publicly Held Company CNPJ/MF nº 00.776.574/0006-60 NIRE 333.0029074-5 MATERIAL FACT B2W – COMPANHIA DIGITAL (“Company” or “B2W Digital”), in continuation to the material fact disclosed on August 25, 2015 in the context of the official letter No. 299/2015/CVM/SEP/GEA-2, hereby informs its shareholders and the market in general that on the date hereof the Company executed, together with its controlled company 8M PARTICIPAÇÕES LTDA. (“8M”) a Quota Purchase Agreement and Other Covenants (“Agreement”) with FANDANGO MEDIA, LLC (“Fandango”) for the sale of 100% of the equity interest in its controlled company INGRESSO.COM LTDA. (“Ingresso.com”) (“Transaction”). According to the terms of the Agreement, the total price to be paid by Fandango for the acquisition of 100% of the quotas of Ingresso.com will be R$280,000,000.00 (two hundred and eighty million reais). The implementation of the Transaction is conditioned upon the fulfillment of certain conditions precedent usual in transactions of similar nature, including the approval by the Brazilian antitrust authorities. The objective of the sale of Ingresso.com is to enable the Company to focus even more in e- commerce transactions, market place, digital services and consumer financing, in line with its strategic plan of becoming the biggest and dearest digital company in Latin America. According to the applicable regulations, the Company will keep its shareholders and market in general informed on the development of the Transaction. The Investors Relations Department of the Company can be reached by telephone +55(21) 2206- 6000 or by e-mail [email protected].
  • Slugging It out Over Software

    Slugging It out Over Software

    Software Feature Slugging it out over software Software patent controversies have put intellectual property onto the front pages of newspapers across the world. A supporter of such patents tries to convince an opponent of their worth made. Patents have never been intended to By Craig Opperman and Jason Schultz be an alternative to first to-market-incentives and many innovation-incentives exist: first-to- There is probably no more vehement IP debate market, patents and others. than whether software should be patentable. Even so, there is plenty of evidence that While proponents argue that protection is vital software patents induce innovation. Many to incentivise innovation and protect those that software start-ups would not have been invest in R&D, opponents believe that it harms financed without patent filings. Without funding, competition and prevents smaller players from they would not have brought products to market, competing with established operators. and would instead have languished with nothing In order to get a closer understanding of more than ideas. Thus, patents are linked to what is involved, we invited two prominent capital, which in turn funds innovation. figures – one from each side of the argument – A classic example is Priceline.com, which to discuss some of the major issues. Jason was founded around patents from a highly Schultz currently leads the San Francisco-based innovative think-tank called Walker Digital. Electronic Frontier Foundation’s (EFF) Patent Priceline was apparently copied by Microsoft’s Busting Project; while Craig Opperman is in Expedia leading to litigation that ultimately private practice in Silicon Valley and has more settled in Priceline’s favour and a license to than 15 years experience as a lawyer and Expedia.
  • Library Start Your Business: Draft a Patent Application

    Library Start Your Business: Draft a Patent Application

    Library Start Your Business: Draft a Patent Application Azalea Ebbay Librarian, San Diego Public Library Roya Bagheri Staff Attorney, San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program, Inc. Paul Yen Primary Examiner, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office June 10, 2020 Library Overview • Patent and Trademark Resource Center with Azalea Ebbay • San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program, Inc. with Roya Bagheri • Learn How to Draft a Patent Application with Paul Yen Library Patent and Trademark Resource Center • Provide free access to patent and trademark resources provided by the USPTO • Direct you to information and explain the application process and fee schedule • Demonstrate how to use patent and trademark search tools • Show you a directory of local patent attorneys and agents who are licensed to practice before the USPTO • Assists with patent searches for an ancestor’s inventions • Offers free educational programs Note: We cannot provide business or legal advice. We cannot perform patent or trademark 2019 Start Your Business event searches. with San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program, Inc. and Procopio Library Teaching patents to high school students for UCSD Rady School of Management’s LaunchPad Kid’s Invent It Month, a program children’s themed program Library You can borrow free small business eBooks with your library card on CloudLibrary. You can also pick up your holds at select San Diego Public Library locations. Library Our Final Event with the U.S.P.T.O. Trademark Application Walk-through with Jason Lott Date: June 17th Time: 2-3:30 p.m. PST Registration website: https://sandiego.librarymarket.com/events/start-your-business-trademark-application-w alk-through-webex-event Any questions? Azalea Ebbay, San Diego Public Library [email protected] (619) 238-6683 San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program, Inc.