![cover image](https://wikiwandv2-19431.kxcdn.com/_next/image?url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Seal_of_the_United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Federal_Circuit.svg/640px-Seal_of_the_United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Federal_Circuit.svg.png&w=640&q=50)
In re Alappat
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994),[1] along with In re Lowry[2] and the State Street Bank case,[3] form an important mid-to-late-1990s trilogy of Federal Circuit opinions because in these cases, that court changed course by abandoning the Freeman-Walter-Abele Test that it had previously used to determine patent eligibility of software patents and patent applications.[4] The result was to open a floodgate of software and business-method patent applications,[5][6] many or most of which later became invalid patents as a result of Supreme Court opinions in the early part of the following century in Bilski v. Kappos and Alice v. CLS Bank.[7][8]
Quick Facts In re Alappat, Court ...
In re Alappat | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit |
Full case name | In re Kuriappan P. Alappat, Edward E. Averill and James G. Larsen |
Decided | July 29 1994 |
Citations | 33 F.3d 1526; 31 U.S.P.Q.2d 1545 |
Holding | |
That the claimed device was considered a machine or apparatus, not a mathematical formula, which fit within the categories considered as patentable subject matter. BPAI reversed. | |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | En banc Court: Chief Judge Glenn L. Archer Jr.; Circuit Judges Giles Rich, Helen W. Nies, Pauline Newman, Haldane Robert Mayer, Paul Redmond Michel, S. Jay Plager, Alan David Lourie, Raymond C. Clevenger, Randall Ray Rader, and Alvin Anthony Schall |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Rich |
Close