English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The Federal Circuit has suggested in some recent cases that any algorithm can serve as adequate structural support for a means-plus-function element in a software patent claim under § 112(f). A recent proposal by Mark Lemley fully endorses this proposition and seeks its broader application. The concept of an algorithm, however, is too slippery to serve as the basis for such a rule. In this Article, I argue that this overreliance on the algorithm concept originated in a revisionist gloss on the Federal Circuit’s 1994 Alappat decision. Informed by a closer reading of what Alappat actually has to say about claim construction under § 112(f), I propose a more stable “concrete causation” standard that is applicable to all technologies, but would be especially well-aligned with the reforms in the software field intended by Lemley’s proposal.

Alappat Redux: Support for Functional Language in Software Patent Claims