SCOTUS to examine fair use in Warhol ‘Prince Series’ case
29-03-2022
SCOTUS declines Apple, Mylan challenge to NHK-Fintiv rule
19-01-2022
J Main / Shutterstock.com
A recent case has only added to the clamour for clarity on Section 101, says Phil Harris of Holland & Hart.
In yet another interesting patent eligibility case, the Supreme Court has once again requested input and insight from the US solicitor general.
The patentee in Tropp v Travel Sentry obtained claims directed to “[a] method of improving airline luggage inspection by a luggage screening entity”.
The claims included features of “making available to consumers a special lock having a combination lock portion and a master key lock portion”, and “marketing the special lock to the consumers in a manner that conveys to the consumers that the special lock will be subjected by the luggage screening entity [eg, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)]”, among others.
The rest of this article is locked for subscribers only. Please login to continue reading.
If you don't have a login, you will need to purchase a subscription to gain access to this article, including all our online content. Please use this link and follow the steps.
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription to us that we can add you to for FREE, please email Atif Choudhury at achoudhury@worldipreview.com
SCOTUS, patent eligibility, Holland & Hart, Section 101, software, technology, Kathi Vidal, USPTO, IP rights
