How about Patenting Software Inventions in the US and China
How about Patenting Software Inventions in the US and China: A Comparative Approach



Live Webcast/Rebroadcast – You watch the course online at the specified date and time shown below. You can ask questions and receive answers during the course.

On-Demand – You watch the course anytime and will have access to the course 24/7. Our On-Demand courses are available within 5-10 business days after the original recording and accessible for one year.

Course Description

This program was recorded on June 13th, 2019

The patentability of software and business method-related inventions has gone through major changes both in the United States and in China. While traditionally more liberal in granting such patents, after a landmark 2014 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court which called into question the validity of many software patents, the value of a software patent been called into question. Unhappy with the uncertainty surrounding software inventions, he US patent community has tried and continues to try to find a good balance point for such patents with decisions from the courts, administrative guidelines from the US Patent and Trademark Office, and legislative efforts in Congress.

On the other hand, Chinese Patent Office (SIPO, now CNIPA) used to be very strict regarding patentability of software and business method-related inventions before April 2017. However, under the impact by dramatic economic growth of Internet business, such as those represented by the BAT(Baidu, Alibaba and Tencent) who became more eager for patents on software and business method-related inventions to protect their technologies and business models, in the past years, such curbs have been somewhat lifted since April 1st, 2017. The current examination practice in CNIPA for such issues is more inventive step-oriented, rather than patent eligibility, and it is easier to draft patent specifications for such patent applications.

Elizabeth Chien-HaleElizabeth Chien-Hale
Ms. Chien-Hale has both in-house and law firm experiences. Prior to joining CKR Law, she worked for several Silicon Valley and international law firms, including general practice firms and IP boutiques. In her in-house capacity, she worked in China on a number of occasions: as the Director of Intellectual Property Legal Affairs for the Asia Pacific Region at Eaton Corporation, and as the interim CEO for Taiwan’s IP Bank project under the Industrial Technology Research Institute (“ITRI”). Prior to her positions in Asia, she served as Apple’s Inc.’s Senior Counsel/China Coordinator for all IPR issues in China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.

Contact Elizabeth Chien-Hale

Xiaolin(Richard) HuangXiaolin(Richard) Huang
Mr. Huang has practiced patent law for over 24 years and has outstanding knowledge, experience and reputation in all patent-related matters. He specializes in patent prosecution, patent invalidation proceedings, patent infringement litigation, FTO analysis, licensing, compliance to regulations of Foreign Filing License and service invention, patent drafting, and client counseling with a focus on technologies related to computer science, telecommunication & IT, software, business method, electronics, semiconductor, AI, medical devices, physics, business method, and nuclear/solar energies. He has filed and prosecuted over 13,000 patent applications in his name before the Chinese Patent Office.

Contact Xiaolin(Richard) Huang

1 General Credit

ProLawCLE will seek approval of any CLE program where the registering attorney is primarily licensed with exceptions stated below. Application is made at the time an attorney registers for a course, therefore approval may not be received at the time of broadcasting.

ProLawCLE does not seek approval in the state of Virginia.

Each state has its own governing rules and regulations with regards to CLE courses and formats, therefore please contact your state MCLE regulatory entity for further details about your state’s rules. Please visit our State Requirements page for information regarding your state’s CLE requirements and/or contact information for your state bar.

As stated in our Reciprocity Provision, ProLawCLE will grant credit in the following states through reciprocity, therefore direct application will not be made in these states:

AK, AR, CO, FL, ME, MT, ND, NH, NJ, NY, and PR.

ProLawCLE is dedicated to providing quality education from expert speakers and ensuring each attorney receives CLE credit for their participation. If for some reason a particular course does not receive approval in the attorney’s primary state of licensure, ProLawCLE will give credit for a future approved course or give a full refund, if applicable.

Each On-Demand course is available to you for 1 year from date of purchase. Additionally, CLE credit is only available within that year.

  1. US:
    1. Brief history and past case law
    2. Statistics at the courts and PTAB since the Alice decision
    3. Current USPTO guidance
    4. Current legislative proposals and major players
  2. China:
    1. Previous curbs on patentability of software and business method-related inventions
    2. Revisions since April 2017
    3. Some cases before and after the revision
    4. Relevant cases from the Court
    5. Trends in the near future