DOCSLIB.ORG

Cunningham Tax Patent US10115165

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cunningham Tax Patent US10115165 US010115165B2 (12 ) United States Patent ( 10 ) Patent No. : US 10 , 115 , 165 B2 Cunningham (45 ) Date of Patent: Oct . 30, 2018 (54 ) MANAGEMENT OF TAX INFORMATION (58 ) Field of Classification Search BASED ON TOPOGRAPHICAL CPC . .. .. .. .. GO6K 9 / 00704 ; H04W 4 /005 INFORMATION See application file for complete search history . ( 71 ) Applicant: UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA , ( 56 ) References Cited Fairbanks, AK (US ) U . S . PATENT DOCUMENTS ( 72 ) Inventor: Keith W . Cunningham , Fairbanks, AK 5 , 652, 717 A * 7 / 1997 Miller .. .. .. .. G06T 17/ 05 (US ) 703 /6 5 , 808, 916 A * 9 /1998 Orr .. .. G06T 17 /05 ( 73 ) Assignee : University of Alaska Fairbanks , 703 / 6 Fairbanks, AK ( US) (Continued ) ( * ) Notice : Subject to any disclaimer , the term of this FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS patent is extended or adjusted under 35 U . S . C . 154 ( b ) by 17 days . WO WO -2011 / 116375 AL 9 /2011 WO W O - 2012 / 037157 A2 3 / 2012 (21 ) Appl. No. : 14 /422 , 379 (Continued ) (22 ) PCT Filed : Aug . 22, 2013 OTHER PUBLICATIONS (86 ) PCT No .: PCT/ US2013 / 056217 Baltsavias, E . et al. , Resolution Convergence : A Comparison of Aerial Photos, LIDAR and IKONOS for Monitoring Cities ', Remotely $ 371 ( c ) ( 1 ) , Sensed Cities , Taylor & Francis , London , 2003 (pp . 61- 66 ) . ( 2 ) Date : Feb . 19, 2015 (Continued ) ( 87) PCT Pub . No. : WO2014 /031870 Primary Examiner — Talia F Crawley PCT Pub . Date : Feb . 27 , 2014 ( 74 ) Attorney , Agent, or Firm - Ballard Spahr LLP (57 ) ABSTRACT (65 ) Prior Publication Data Methods and systems for assessing changes to a region are US 2015 /0235325 A1 Aug . 20 , 2015 disclosed . An example method can comprise receiving elevation data indicative of a region . A method can comprise Related U . S . Application Data generating a spatial model of the region based on the (60 ) Provisional application No . 61/ 692 , 213 , filed on Aug . elevation data . A method can also comprise identifying 22 , 2012 based on the spatial model a first representation of a portion the region . The first representation of the portion of the (51 ) Int. Ci. region can be indicative of the portion of the region at a first GO1C 21 /32 ( 2006 .01 ) time. A method can further comprise determining a differ G06Q 40 /00 ( 2012 .01 ) ence between the first representation of the portion of the (Continued ) region and a second representation of the portion of the ( 52 ) U . S . CI. region . The second representation of the portion of the CPC .. .. .. .. G06Q 40 / 12 ( 2013 . 12 ) ; G06Q 10 /067 region can be indicative of the portion of the region at a ( 2013. 01 ) ; G06Q 50/ 16 (2013 .01 ) ; G06Q second time. 50/ 26 ( 2013 .01 ) 20 Claims, 44 Drawing Sheets 221 Terminal 1 124 Internet 120 --- 26 Server (system ) 14 Terminal User 16 12 File Client US 10 ,115 , 165 B2 Page 2 (51 ) Int. Cl. 2013 / 0013471 A1* 1 /2013 Fishman . .. GO6Q 40 / 00 G060 50/ 16 ( 2012 . 01 ) 705 / 31 2013 /0046471 A12 / 2013 Rahmes et al. G06Q 50 /26 ( 2012 . 01 ) 2015/ 0356539 A1 * 12/ 2015 McNeel .. .. .. G060 20 / 207 G06Q 10 /06 ( 2012 .01 ) 705 / 19 ( 56 ) References Cited FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS U . S . PATENT DOCUMENTS WO WO - 2013 / 110072 AL 7 / 2013 6 , 963 ,662 B1 11/ 2005 LeClerc et al. WO W O - 2014 /031870 A2 2 / 2014 7 , 092 , 957 B2 * 8 / 2006 Klein .. G06F 17 / 30893 701/ 472 7 . 454 , 047 B2 11/ 2008 Ragsdale OTHER PUBLICATIONS 9 , 501 , 209 B2 * 11/ 2016 Klein GO6F 17 /30893 9 ,589 , 259 B2 * 3 / 2017 McNeel .. .. .. .. .. .. G06Q 20 /207 Song, Y . et al. , Property Tax and Urban Sprawl: Theory and 2002 / 0010572 A1 * 1 / 2002 Orton .. .. .. .. .. .. .. G06Q 10 / 06 Implications for US Cities , May 12 , 2006 (pp . 2 - 8 ) . 703 / 22 International Search Report dated Mar. 7 , 2014 by the International 2003 / 0140064 A1 * 7 / 2003 Klein . .. .. .. GO6F 17 /30893 Searching Authority for International Application No . PCT/ US2013 / 2005 / 0203681 A1 * 9 / 2005 Minor , Jr . .. H04W 4 /005 056217 , which was published as WO /2014 /031870 on Feb . 27, 2014 701/ 23 ( Inventor - Cunningham , K . W .; Applicant - Univ . of Alaska ; ( 9 2006 /0136126 A1 * 6 / 2006 Coombes . .. GO9B 29 / 10 pages ) . 701 /532 Preliminary Report on Patentability dated Feb . 24 , 2015 by the 2006 /0197781 A1 * 9 /2006 Arutunian . .. .. GO1C 21/ 32 International Searching Authority for International Application No . 345 /629 PCT/ US2013 /056217 , which was published as WO / 2014 /031870 2006 /0228019 A1 * 10 /2006 Rahmes . .. GO6K 9 /00637 on Feb . 27 , 2014 ( Inventor - Cunningham , K . W .; Applicant - Univ . 382 / 154 of Alaska ; ( 7 pages ) . 2006 /0265350 A1 * 11/ 2006 Klein . .. .. .. .. G06F 17 / 30893 International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Jun . 10 , 2007 /0124328 A1 * 5 / 2007 Klein . G06F 17 / 30893 2013 by the International Searching Authority for International 2008 /0298638 A1 * 12 / 2008 Miyazaki G06K900637 Application No . PCT/ US2013 /022556 , which was filed on Jan . 22 , 382 / 106 2009/ 0177557 A1 * 7 / 2009 Klein . .. .. GO6F 17 /30893 2013 and published as WO 2013 /110072 on Jul. 25, 2013 ( Applicant 705 / 26 . 1 Univ . of Alaska ) ( 8 pages ) . 2010 / 0085175 Al 4 /2010 Fridthjof International Preliminary Report on Patentability dated Jul . 22 , 2010 /0182316 A1 * 7 / 2010 Akbari GO6T 17 /05 2014 by the International Searching Authority for International 345 /427 Application No . PCT/ US2013 /022556 , which was filed on Jan . 22 , 2010 / 0208982 AL 8 / 2010 Shimamura et al . 2013 and published as WO 2013 / 110072 on Jul. 25 , 2013 ( Applicant 2011/ 0267355 AL 11/ 2011 Coombes et al . Univ . of Alaska ) ( 7 pages) . 2011/ 0268316 A1 11 /2011 Bronder et al . 2011/ 0295575 Al 12 / 2011 Levine et al . * cited by examiner atent Oct. 30 , 2018 Sheet 1 of 44 US 10 , 115, 165 B2 Terminal 1 24 Internet 120 - 26 Server 10 ? (system ) FEESSAIRE Terminali User - 16 124 FileFile Clientclient 18 atent Oct. 30 , 2018 Sheet 2 of 44 US 10 ,115 , 165 B2 Video Terminal ???????????????????????????????????????????? Video WON 30 Comm rri bugesedo wejsks ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ???? ? + .leprydebodoi Ut 437 umyos. uopeoiddy * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU rrrrrrrrrrr Data Storage S . , , , , , , , , , , - - - - - -C50 . : : V atent Oct. 30 , 2018 Sheet 3 of 44 US 10 ,115 , 165 B2 WWWWWWWWWWWWWW SelectLa Data es W 891 VAAL * US BUEN HVALANAV LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL ) Sast} }re < SSC :ht ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? WWWWWWW Y SKEGA 09 oooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwJOUT JEDI S Eev . Vairo SUS AA1 WWWWWWW oonWWW NS Bonnet YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY Sawy Vi HY OR WWWWWWWWWW . ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ? ??????????? ??????? 1111111111111111 Mini wWwWWWW VY 00000000 atent Oct. 30 , 2018 Sheet 4 of 44 US 10 , 115, 165 B2 VINNULLY SALLYVINNAN TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT ???? Select Lidar Data Files Break /Reload 43 LESLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL Field Delimeter: Units : 42LLLLLLLLLLLL mimimmmmmmmmemman X Coord Field : PT Field Numbers : Y Coord Field: Z Coord Field LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL Run Name: Wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww O 1 Tabular Extents File LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL 82- Statistics File O Cumulative Exents File ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? AIAAN WWWWWWW . Directory: Browse LLLLLLLLLLLL wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW errrr LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLGather Lidarmm Stats AK . : : : : 41 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * L oad Stats From1 Previously Saved Extents File YR ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????? 924 -Low Width : MOT86 140104 94 - High Width : 100% High Height: 96 Width : 102 Height TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa 104 Low Elevation ; WYM 4YYYY ?????????????????????? 106 High Elevation : 1 YZ View Data Distribution LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLS 108 Elevation DifferenceSYNY : atent Oct. 30 , 2018 Sheet 5 of 44 US 10 , 115 , 165 B2 120- Pixel Size : Elev . Value : CELELA M ' ??????? Lower 122 TotalWidth : ?????????????????????????????????????????????? . www * * * * EW Bound: 124 TotalHeight : MAAR NS Bound: 128 130 Num File EW : men NALAN File Size EW (units ); 132 Num File NS : OR File Size NS (units ) : 138 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1 File Will Be Created 11111111 ???????????????????????????? ??????????? * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ????? - - - - ???????????????????? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ???? - ????????????? - ??? 2 - 2222- 2222 - 2222- 2222- 2222- 2222- 22 rrrrrrrr Set Elevation Colors YUKSEKSUELLES SIE SELEZIE R ZERKERIERLIERTELLITELLILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE311111111111 * Create TFW Files D Auto Save 4 La Build Model VYPATISSPP Elapsed Time 00: 00 File Selected : Record Count Reading Lidar Records : Pixels Calculated : Save Total Data Records : PPIPPPPPPPP Model atent Oct. 30 , 2018 Sheet 6 of 44 US 10 ,115 , 165 B2 4100 2612973 Close LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY INTERNETINUTURI L 2612152 44444444444444444444444444444
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Patents on Tax Strategies: Issues in Intellectual Property and Innovation
    . Patents on Tax Strategies: Issues in Intellectual Property and Innovation John R. Thomas Visiting Scholar January 6, 2010 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL34221 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress c11173008 . Patents on Tax Strategies: Issues in Intellectual Property and Innovation Summary Several bills introduced in the 111th Congress addressed the recently recognized phenomenon of patented tax strategies. These legislative initiatives would prevent the grant of exclusive intellectual property rights by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on methods that individuals and enterprises might use in order to minimize their tax obligations. Many commentators trace the rise of tax strategy patents to the 1998 opinion of the Federal Circuit in State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group, which rejected a per se rule that business methods could not be patented. In recent years, the USPTO has issued a number of patents that pertain to tax strategies, and numerous other patent applications remain before that agency. At least one of these patents, the so-called SOGRAT patent, has been subject to enforcement litigation in federal court. The impact of tax strategy patents upon social welfare has been subject to a spirited debate. Some observers are opposed to tax strategy patents. These commentators believe that patent protection is unnecessary with respect to tax avoidance techniques due to a high level of current innovation. Others believe that patent-based incentives to develop tax avoidance strategies are not socially desirable. They assert that patents may limit the ability of individuals to utilize provisions of the tax code intended for all taxpayers, interfering with congressional intent and leading to distortions in tax obligations.
    [Show full text]
  • Tax Patents: at the Crossroads of Tax and Patent Law
    TAX PATENTS: AT THE CROSSROADS OF TAX AND PATENT LAW Linda M. Beale† I. INTRODUCTION In the United States today, the tax practitioner community has belatedly become fully aware of the availability of patents for business method processes and financial transactions—including computer-driven processes that have tax- minimizing possibilities and even tax-advantageous methods of structuring transactions. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“the Patent Office”) has been granting business method patents for a number of years.1 State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, a seminal case for business method patents, was perhaps one of the earliest tax-related patent decisions: the Federal Circuit held that a computerized system for managing mutual funds’ pooling of investments through a tax partnership was patentable subject matter.2 In the decade since State Street, a number of business method patents with tax implications have been granted, and even more business 3 method tax patent applications are pending. † Visiting Associate Professor, Boston College Law School and Associate Professor, Wayne State University Law School. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Boston College Tax Colloquium. The article covers developments concerning tax strategy and business method patents through March 2008. The author wishes to express her gratitude for comments of colleagues James Repetti, Diane Ring, David Olson, Alfred Yen and Joseph Liu. 1. See U.S. PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE, A USPTO WHITE PAPER: AUTOMATED FINANCIAL OR MANAGEMENT DATA PROCESSING METHODS (BUSINESS METHODS) (2000), available at http://uspto.gov/web/menu/busmethp/whitepaper.doc (discussing the history of business method patents) [hereinafter, WHITE PAPER].
    [Show full text]
  • When Worlds Collide: Tax Planning Method Patents Meet Tax Practice, Making Attorneys the Latest Patent Infringers
    WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE: TAX PLANNING METHOD PATENTS MEET TAX PRACTICE, MAKING ATTORNEYS THE LATEST PATENT INFRINGERS Richard S. Gruner† I. INTRODUCTION Tax planning patents have produced an uproar exemplifying the unexpected conflict that can result “when worlds collide.”1 Tax planning patents apply to methods of income and asset management that produce desirable tax results.2 These patents exist at the intersection of two specialized and previously separated legal worlds. The patent world is governed by intellectual property rules and the bedrock principle that certain types of non- obvious innovations are best encouraged by giving their originators broad controls over the innovations for limited periods.3 The tax world is governed by a complex set of tax law standards against which the affairs of clients must be evaluated and shaped to aid the clients in lawfully reducing their tax † Director of the Center for Intellectual Property Law and Professor of Law at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago. L.L.M., Columbia University School of Law, 1982; J.D. U.S.C. Law School, 1978; B.S., California Institute of Technology, 1975. 1. The original “When Worlds Collide” was a 1932 science fiction novel co-written by Philip Gordon Wylie and Edwin Balmer, both of whom also authored the sequel After Worlds Collide. See PHILIP WYLIE & EDWIN BALMER, AFTER WORLDS COLLIDE (1982); PHILIP WYLIE & EDWIN BALMER, WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE (1999). Perhaps more familiar to most readers is the 1951 film that won the 1951 Academy Award for Best Effects, Special Effects. When Worlds Collide (1951), Awards, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044207/awards (last visited May 13, 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • Is Bilski Likely the Final Word on Tax Strategy Patents?Coherence Matters,9 J
    THE JOHN MARSHALL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW il,!I I Is BILSKiLIKELY THE FINAL WORD ON TAx STRATEGY PATENTS? COHERENCE MATTERS LINDA M. BEALE ABSTRACT The Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in In re Bilski presents an opportunity to lay to rest the patent eligibility of tax strategies. A comparison of the core values of the patent and tax systems reveals fundamental conflicts that have gained the attention of tax practitioners, bar associations and Congress. These conflicts are identified by tracing both the development of patentable subject matter and the policy goals of the tax system. This article addresses the future of tax strategy patents in light of In re Bilski and analyzes the potential for the Court to deliver guidance that makes clear the ineligibility of tax strategies as patent subject matter. Copyright © 2009 The John Marshall Law School; Linda M. Beale M Cite as Linda M. Beale, Is Bilski Likely the Final Word on Tax Strategy Patents?Coherence Matters,9 J. MARSHALL REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 110 (2009). Is BILSKLIKELY THE FINAL WORD ON TAx STRATEGY PATENTS? COHERENCE MATTERS LINDA M. BEALE * Two decades ago, patents granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("Patent Office") primarily dealt with routine industrial manufacturing processes and tangible machines.' The Federal Circuit's landmark 1998 decision in State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature FinancialGroup, Inc.2 found a method for processing data to manage mutual funds through a "hub and spoke" system to be statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.3 The State Street decision appeared to remove any doubt that there ever was an exception to patentable subject matter for business methods that do not involve traditional industrial inventions: methods of conducting business can be patentable processes, the court held, so long as they produce a "useful, concrete and tangible result."4 The case revolutionized the types of claims before the Patent Office, resulting in an avalanche of business method and 5 financial transaction applications moving through the system.
    [Show full text]
  • THE PROLIFERATION of TAX STRATEGY PATENTS: HAS PATENTING GONE Too FAR?
    THE JOHN MARSHALL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW THE PROLIFERATION OF TAX STRATEGY PATENTS: HAS PATENTING GONE Too FAR? ANISH PARIKH ABSTRACT Many people employ an accountant or tax attorney to assist them with the paying of their taxes. Tax practitioners may utilize various tax strategies in determining how a taxpayer should allocate his money. These tax strategies fall into the category of business methods. It was widely held that patents could not be granted for methods of doing business; however, this changed in 1998 when the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the patentability of an investment structure in State Street Bank & Trust Company v. SignatureFinancial Group, Inc. More recently, in Wealth Transfer Group v. Rowe, the scenario of being sued for using a patented tax strategy was illustrated. The current state of patent law makes no mention of tax strategies; however, after analyzing the characteristics of tax strategies with the elements required for patentability, it is determined that tax strategies should not be patentable subject matter. This proposal suggests that the patent laws be amended, as they have been in the past, to remove tax strategies from being patent-eligible subject matter, a solution which lies in Congress' hands. Copyright © 2007 The John Marshall Law School Cite as Anish Parikh, Comment, The Proliferationof Tax Strategy Patents."Has PatentingGone Too Far?,7 J. MARSHALL REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 202 (2007). THE PROLIFERATION OF TAX STRATEGY PATENTS: HAS PATENTING GONE Too FAR? Anish Parikh* INTRODUCTION Imagine the already daunting task of walking into your tax attorney's office.
    [Show full text]
  • Securing, Enforcing, and Avoiding Infringement Of
    SECURING, ENFORCING, AND AVOIDING INFRINGEMENT OF U.S., INTERNATIONAL, AND FOREIGN PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, AND COPYRIGHTS; SECURING TRADE SECRETS; AND AVOIDING UNFAIRUNFAIR COMPETITIONCOMPETITION This paper contains general information about patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and unfair competition, and is intended to make the reader aware of issues in intellectual property law. Because there are exceptions to many, if not all, of the rules mentioned in this paper, and because laws and rules change frequently, the reader should discuss his particular situation with a patent attorney before making any decision regarding his intellectual property rights and responsibilities. Charles C. Garvey, Jr., Patent Attorney** Gregory C. Smith, Patent Attorney* Seth M. Nehrbass, Patent Attorney Brett A. North, Patent Attorney Vanessa M. D'Souza, Patent Attorney Julia M. FitzPatrick, Patent Attorney** Mackenzie D. Rodríguez, Patent Attorney Julie Rabalais Chauvin, Patent Attorney Mark N. Melasky, Patent Attorney GARVEY, SMITH, NEHRBASS & NORTH, L.L.C. PATENT ATTORNEYS Three Lakeway Center, Suite 3290 3838 North Causeway Boulevard Metairie, LA 70002; U.S.A. Tel.: 504-835-2000; Fax: 504-835-2070 e-mail: [email protected] www.neworleanspatents.com Northshore Office: No. 7 Boston Commons 832 East Boston Street Covington, Louisiana 70433, U.S.A. Tel: (985) 635-6892; Fax: (985) 635-6972 *Northshore office **Northshore office also +not licensed in Louisiana US patent law has recently changed. Please check with us about first-inventor-to-file changes and the importance of filing patent applications early. © 1998-2016 GARVEY, SMITH, NEHRBASS & NORTH, L.L.C. PATENT ATTORNEYS PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADE SECRETS CAVEAT: This paper contains general information about patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets, and is intended to make the reader aware of issues in intellectual property law.
    [Show full text]
  • At the Crossroads of Tax and Patent Law Linda M
    Masthead Logo Wayne State University Law Faculty Research Publications Law School 1-1-2008 Tax Patents: At the Crossroads of Tax and Patent Law Linda M. Beale Wayne State University Recommended Citation Beale, Linda M.. Tax Patents: At the Crossroads of Tax and Patent Law. 2008 U. Ill. J.L. Tech. & Pol'y 107, 148 (2008) Available at: https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/lawfrp/365 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at DigitalCommons@WayneState. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Research Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@WayneState. TAX PATENTS: AT THE CROSSROADS OF TAX AND PATENT LAW Linda M Bealet I. INTRODUCTION In the United States today, the tax practitioner community has belatedly become fully aware of the availability of patents for business method processes and financial transactions-including computer-driven processes that have tax- minimizing possibilities and even tax-advantageous methods of structuring transactions. The United States Patent and Trademark Office ("the Patent Office") has been granting business method patents for a number of years.1 State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature FinancialGroup, a seminal case for business method patents, was perhaps one of the earliest tax-related patent decisions: the Federal Circuit held that a computerized system for managing mutual funds' ? ooling of investments through a tax partnership was patentable subject matter. In the decade since State Street, a number of business method patents with tax implications have been 3granted, and even more business method tax patent applications are pending. t Visiting Associate Professor, Boston College Law School and Associate Professor, Wayne State University Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Standards and Patent Damages, 14 J. MARSHALL REV. INTELL
    THE JOHN MARSHALL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW PUBLIC STANDARDS AND PATENT DAMAGES BEN JOHNSON ABSTRACT Some markets require legislation in order to exist. The products and/or services offered by those markets may be covered by one or more letters patent. In certain of those markets, a situation arises in which a private party owns a right to exclude others from participating in that publicly-enabled market. These situations may be referred to “public standards.” Like their cousins in the private sector, public standards require special consideration when it comes to determining potential compensation to the patentee from its competitors. Following the lead of the Western District of Washington, this paper recommends a modification of the traditional Georgia-Pacific reasonable royalty formulation for a patent damages calculation. Specifically, this paper recommends that calculating damages for public standard patents should require an explicit, thorough consideration of the public interest in addition to the patents themselves and the relationship of the involved parties. Only then will the interests of the public be adequately protected. Copyright © 2015 The John Marshall Law School Cite as Ben Johnson, Public Standards and Patent Damages, 14 J. MARSHALL REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 199 (2015). PUBLIC STANDARDS AND PATENT DAMAGES BEN JOHNSON I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 200 II. PUBLIC STANDARDS ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Patents on Tax Strategies: Just Another Harmless Subject
    ANDERSON.DOC 9/14/2009 11:18 AM PATENTS ON TAX STRATEGIES: JUST ANOTHER HARMLESS SUBJECT CHRISTOPHER C. ANDERSON This Note analyzes the subject matter eligibility of patents on tax strategies. In 2003, the United States Patent and Trademark Office is- sued the first patent explicitly covering a tax strategy. Since this deci- sion, many other tax practitioners have attempted to patent tax strate- gies. The requirements to have a patentable tax strategy are not entirely clear, and commentators have voiced strong opinions on both sides of the patentability argument. Indeed, some feel that patents covering tax strategies are not constitutional or might otherwise not fit under the policy rationales upon which the patent system was built. The Note first addresses the statutory requirements that all pa- tent applications must satisfy before receiving patent allowance. Next, the Note analyzes the policy rationales implicit in the patent system. Considering this background, the author explains how patents cover- ing tax strategies fall within the constitutional requirements of patent- eligible subject matter and how tax strategy patents would be in line with the various policies and purposes underlying the patent system. After considering the practical implications of allowing tax strategy patents, the author concludes that recognizing tax strategy patents would be appropriate, so long as Congress took action to limit the remedies available to a holder of a tax strategy patent. I. INTRODUCTION Concerns over the scope of the United States patent system are as old as the patent system itself. They have ranged from concern over al- lowing “foreigners” to receive patents1 to concern that granting an exclu- sive patent on an original invention will prevent others from improving on that invention.2 Prevalent among these concerns are “shock waves”3 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Patenting the Tax Code: Monopolizing Basic Tax Strategy
    Buffalo Intellectual Property Law Journal Volume 5 Number 1 Article 2 10-1-2007 Patenting the Tax Code: Monopolizing Basic Tax Strategy Nicholas Robinson Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffaloipjournal Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, Taxation-Federal Commons, and the Taxation-Federal Estate and Gift Commons Recommended Citation Nicholas Robinson, Patenting the Tax Code: Monopolizing Basic Tax Strategy, 5 Buff. Intell. Prop. L.J. 50 (2007). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffaloipjournal/vol5/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Buffalo Intellectual Property Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BUFFALO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW JOURNAL VOLUME 5 FALL 2007 NUMBER 1 ARTICLE PATENTING THE TAX CODE: MONOPOLIZING BASIC TAX STRATEGY NICHOLAS ROBINSON' I. Introduction ....................................................................................... 5 1 II. Tax Planning and Patents ................................................................... 52 III. Wealth Transfer Group and Patent No. 6,567,790 ............................ 57 IV . A ddressing the Issue ....................................................................... 60 V . C onclusion ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Masur, Jonathan
    RAISING THE STAKES IN PATENT CASES Anup Malani & Jonathan S. Masur† INTRODUCTION One of the fundamental goals of a patent system is to encourage the research and development of the most socially valuable inventions—those innovations that will produce the greatest benefits for society at large. If the government could determine in advance which inventions are most socially valuable, it could simply offer direct rewards for their development.1 The fact that the United States has chosen to employ patents rather than direct rewards to encourage innovation reflects a decision to decentralize the task of picking winners. If inventors are in a better position than the government to identify valuable innovations, the government may delegate the task by granting inventors a patent as a reward for innovation.2 Patents entitle inventors to monopoly profits from an innovation,3 and monopoly profits tend to increase as the social value of an innovation increases.4 Thus, the patent system generally encourages inventors to work on the most valuable inventions. This rationale for choosing a patent system over a reward system explains why the government may choose to grant patents in the first place. It does not explain, however, why the government sometimes takes patents away after they have been granted. These patent revocations are triggered when the defendant in a patent infringement case successfully challenges the validity of the patent held by the plaintiff. The logic behind patent challenges and revocations is that the government, when implementing a patent system, might accidentally give out patents to entities that did not † Professor of Law and Assistant Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • The High Cost and Value of Patents: Finding the Appropriate Balance Between the Rights of the Inventor and the Advancement of Society
    Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont CMC Senior Theses CMC Student Scholarship 2012 The iH gh Cost and Value of Patents: Finding the Appropriate Balance Between the Rights of the Inventor and the Advancement of Society Andy Segal Claremont McKenna College Recommended Citation Segal, Andy, "The iH gh Cost and Value of Patents: Finding the Appropriate Balance Between the Rights of the Inventor and the Advancement of Society" (2012). CMC Senior Theses. Paper 400. http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/400 This Open Access Senior Thesis is brought to you by Scholarship@Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in this collection by an authorized administrator. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CLAREMONT McKENNA COLLEGE The High Cost and Value of Patents: Finding the Appropriate Balance Between the Rights of the Inventor and the Advancement of Society SUBMITTED TO PROFESSOR MARCOS F. MASSOUD AND PROFESSOR JAMES D. TAYLOR AND DEAN GREGORY HESS BY ANDY SEGAL FOR SENIOR THESIS SPRING 2012 APRIL 23, 2012 Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to thank Professor Marcos F. Massoud and Professor James D. Taylor, my thesis readers, who sparked my interest in accounting, taxation, and business law. It was in Professor Massoud’s office that I came across the idea for my thesis topic. As Professor Massoud has done for me so many times before, he laid out a plan of attack, providing the groundwork for successfully achieving my goal. Professor Massoud has been my advisor since freshman year, and without his invaluable guidance and advice, there is no way I could have realized the many goals I set out to achieve when I first stepped foot on the campus of CMC.
    [Show full text]