Software patent for sale

In one case DDR Holdings v. In effect, the software prevented a user from bouncing to a third-party website upon clicking an advertisement.

Instead, the software enable a user to complete a transaction on a host webpage to purchase third-party merchandise despite clicking on a third-party advertisement.

Finally, the court believed that the patent claims were narrowly tailored to one specific solution. This last point makes founders or technical people scratch their heads. But it does not claim the abstract concept of retaining users who visit a webpage.

It is very important that you have several discussions with your patent attorney on this point. The line between preempting every application and narrowly claiming your invention is often invisible at the drafting stage.

But this is where your patent attorney earns his or her fees. Identifying the right level of abstraction for your claims is critical. In another case, Bascom v. The underlying technology in that case dealt with software for filtering internet content based on permissions and other controls.

But the patentees sought to patent a filtering tool that could be installed at a specific location that is remote from the end-user. The court found methodology to be patentable because the solution was unconventional and because the claims were not overbroad. Specifically, Bascom did not claim every method for filtering web content. Much to the chagrin of developers and founders—the patentability question for software inventions often comes down to how the patent and the patent claims are written.

You can improve your odds of getting a patent by describing the technical challenges in your field of invention, and specifically describing the engineering solutions that you have come up with to address those challenges. Moreover, you must claim your invention very carefully.

You should not claim every method of relieving a particular pain point. Instead, your claims should be narrowly tailored to claim only the pain point that you have come up with. To Blog. Geography Patents 5 Adaptive location data buffering for location-aware applications Architecture and two-layered protocol for real-time location-aware applications Method for Removal of Wax from Porous Stones in Historical Monuments. Cartilage Fluorescent Reporter Transgenic Zebrafish.

Healthcare Patents Screening for risk of falling in the elderly. Internet Patents 45 Determining an optimality coefficient of an image Pointing and Identification Device Method for disabling the audible and visual notifications that are played and displayed upon receiving an incoming message.

Life Sciences Patents Method of producing recombinant biological products Nanoparticle clusters and methods for forming same Specimen Gathering Device and Method of Use. Marketing Patents 10 Determining an optimality coefficient of an image System and method for dynamically valuing social media influence in remote transaction initiation System and method for automatically distributing tangible rewards for electronic social activity.

Inventors and their attorneys should use these guidelines to ensure that the disclosure of the patent application provides sufficient detail to overcome the evaluations the examiner is expected to perform. The Oct. In such a case, further analysis pursuant to the second step of the Alice test will be required. Since, in most patent applications, the examiner is the judge appeals can get prohibitively expensive , the easiest way to overcome an Alice type subject matter eligibility rejection would be to augment the invention with a software implementation.

Please note: this can only be done at initial stages of drafting an application prior to its filing. Providing a technical implementation of how the software performs the task would pass the Alice test. However, this often requires the inventor to describe the invention in technical terms. The inventor needs to provide sufficient detail on how the tasks are performed by the computer.

The patent application described that if multiple users were going to the same venue e. The patent application described the following key features the app could perform:. The patent application augmented the disclosure with flow charts, etc. Particularly, the examiner determined that the invention could be performed by conventional means, like in the human mind or by using a pen and paper e. Thereafter, performing the step 2 analysis, the examiner held that the patent application did not limit the idea with a particular technology, improved another technology or technical field, or improved any aspect of a computer itself.