Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2139146
 


 



'Fuzzy' Software Patent Boundaries and High Claim Construction Reversal Rates


Shawn P. Miller


Stanford Law School

February 7, 2013

Stanford Technology Law Review, Vol. 17, No. __, 2014

Abstract:     
Bessen and Meurer (2008) theorize that a breakdown in notice of patent boundaries caused the patent litigation surge of the 1990s. They argue a prime source of this breakdown was the proliferation of software patents with particularly uncertain scope. In this paper I seek evidence that software patent scope is more uncertain by extending the empirical literature on claim construction reversal rates to determine whether the Federal Circuit has been more likely to find error in district court construction of software patents. Not only do I find that it has, since 2002 software patents account for forty percent of the difference between the Federal Circuit’s high claim construction reversal rate and its lower average reversal rate on all other patent issues. These results are cause for optimism because, in general, the application of existing claim construction law has been more predictable than many have feared. However, that optimism does not extend to software claim construction, which remains highly unpredictable.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 25

Keywords: Patent, Software, Claim Construction, Uncertainty, Litigation

JEL Classification: D8, L00, O34

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: August 31, 2012 ; Last revised: April 10, 2014

Suggested Citation

Miller, Shawn P., 'Fuzzy' Software Patent Boundaries and High Claim Construction Reversal Rates (February 7, 2013). Stanford Technology Law Review, Vol. 17, No. __, 2014. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2139146 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2139146

Contact Information

Shawn Patrick Miller (Contact Author)
Stanford Law School ( email )
Stanford, CA 94305
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 674
Downloads: 132
Download Rank: 132,387
Paper comments
No comments have been made on this paper

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo8 in 0.312 seconds