The U.S. Supreme Court held last week that some, but not all, computer-implemented software functions are too abstract to qualify for a patent.

A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling involving a classic Hollywood film may have dealt a knockout punch to a commonly used affirmative defense in a much broader range of cases, including patent litigation.

U.S. Supreme Court rulings giving federal District Court judges more flexibility in awarding attorney fees to prevailing parties in patent suits could help curb the recent uptick in abusive patent litigation.

In a case that could clarify the specificity with which patent holders must describe their inventions, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court and the attorneys arguing the case of Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments Inc., No. 13-369, had a tough time finding the right words to articulate a standard.

The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are facing the difficult task of determining whether computer-implemented software programs that draw on non-computerized principles — a category that could encompass countless types of programs that are in use by millions of people — are eligible for patents.