Founded in 1927, Temple Law Review is a student-edited, quarterly journal dedicated to providing a forum for the expression of new legal thought and scholarly commentary on important developments, trends, and issues in the law. 

TLR Spotlight

Check Out: Volume 87.3 [Authors, Previews, and Full-text .Pdfs Inside]

Matthew Wansley – Cost-Benefit Analysis as a Commitment Device

Elizabeth I. Winston – Patent Boundaries

Terese Schireson – The Ethical Lawyer-Client Arbitration Clause

Zachery B. Roth – The Money . . . or the Monet? Addressing the Monetization of Detroit’s Art Collection in Bankruptcy

Jody Thomas López-Jacobs – Is There a Border Exception to the Exclusionary Rule?

Ben Fabens-Lassen – A Cracked Remedy: The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 and Retroactive Application of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010

From Benson to Alice: Evolution of Patent Eligibility of Computer-Implemented Inventions Under 35 U.S.C. § 101

“More than forty years ago, the Supreme Court told us that abstract ideas are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Court also said that specific applications of such ideas are patent eligible. Since then, the courts have struggled to figure out where an unpatentable abstract idea ends and a patentable process applying that idea begins. This uncertainty has become a problem in the information age, as more inventions have involved processes handled by computers. As the technology evolved, the courts have tried to come up with a test that can be used to determine if a particular process is patent eligible. After more than four decades of struggling with this question, the answer remains unclear . . .” – Epelbaum, From Benson to Alice: Evolution of Patent Eligibility of Computer-Implemented Inventions Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, 87 Temp. L. Rev. Online 15, 27–28 (2015).

In light of the Supreme Court’s unanimous summertime statement on patent law, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intl., 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), author Gleb Epelbaum has traced the challenging history of computer-implemented inventions and their patentability. Because the Court has “repeatedly declined to categorically exclude software and business methods”—two pillars of Information Age technology—from patent eligibility, new inventions promise to provide continuing challenges. Thus, this article constructs a timeline of leading case law and serves as a primer for understanding the context, analysis, and guidelines of Alice.

Check Out: Volume 87.2 [Authors, Previews, and Full-text .Pdfs Inside]

Shalanda Helen Baker – Is Fracking the Next Financial Crisis?: A Development Lens for Understanding Systematic Risk and Governance

Claire Raj – The Gap Between Rights and Reality: The Intersection of Language, Disability, and Educational Opportunity

Kevin W. Yoegel – The Aereo Loophole: A Retrospective Inquiry into the Legality of Antenna Farms and Internet-Based Television

Bradley R. Smith – Treating Professional Athletes Like Wall Street Executives: The Potential for Clawback Provisions in Sports Contracts

Anna Kessler – Excavating Expungement Law: A Comprehensive Approach

The Social Medium: Why the Authentication Bar Should Be Raised For Social Media Evidence

This article is the first publication in Temple Law Review Online, a new platform for publishing scholarly works that are shorter than the traditional law review article, involve time-sensitive topics, or directly respond to materials published in Temple Law Review’s printed issues. We are excited to present the inaugural writing on a fitting topic: the intersection of modern Internet culture and traditional laws of Evidence. Professor Miller uses recent examples of “social media evidence” to argue that, given the current technological and social climate, a more stringent authentication standard must be developed and used.

You may find other work by Professor Miller at his blog, EvidenceProf Blog:

View Current Edition