Full text of DOI:10.1109/35.852040

PATENTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
E-Commerce Patents and
Shifting Balances in Patent Law
Stephen C. Durant and Thomas C. Chuang, Morrison & Foerster LLP
Congress allow regulation to go forward.” An
ABSTRACT
article entitled “Patently Absurd” [2] appeared
in the New York Times Magazine. The article
argues that the granting of patents for ideas in
cyberspace could kill e-commerce. It cites a com-
mon complaint that many of today’s Internet
“inventions” were performed offline, and there-
fore do not meet the novel and nonobvious
requirements for patentability.
The rules with respect to the patentability of
software and business method inventions have
loosened over the last decade to allow a broader
range of patentability. Many patents issuing today
are in the e-commerce area, and there is often a
close relationship between what is being patented
and generation of wealth. Critics of the surge of
e-commerce patents argue these patents may sti-
fle development of e-commerce. The level of con-
cern of critics may be unwarranted since the
broader range of patentability that has occurred
has been balanced somewhat against a narrower
scope of protection occurring during the same
time period as a result of more restrictive claim
interpretation during enforcement of patents.
This more restrictive claim interpretation has cre-
ated an onus on patent owners to effectively draft
and prosecute patents to obtain protection com-
mensurate with the scope of the inventions.
This article discusses the changes in patent law
that have occurred over the last several years
which have resulted in the present controversy and
spotlight on the patent system. Table 1 summarizes
changes in the nature of subject matter rules for
acquiring patents for software and business meth-
ods, and the resultant change in the nexus between
these patents and the bottom line goal of business
which is to generate wealth. Table 1 also illustrates
significant changes in the rules for interpreting the
scope of protection provided by patents.
The following will explain the expansion in the
scope of patentable subject matter to encompass
computer software and business methods. This
expansion has occurred at the same time that the
Internet created a new platform for a prolifera-
tion of new software-based business models. Not
surprisingly, this confluence of an expansion of
the reach of the patent system and the develop-
ment of completely new ways of creating wealth
through online transactions that fall within the
new reach of the patent system has stirred signifi-
cant controversy. However, the participants in this
controversy generally fail to consider a contrary
trend in the patent system, a trend toward a more
restrictive interpretation of the scope of coverage
afforded to patents by the courts. Finally, we con-
sider yet another viewpoint, that the problem is
not e-commerce patents per se, or a changing bal-
ance in the rigor involved in issuance and enforce-
ment of patents, but rather involves the
procedures used by the Patent Office to decide
whether or not a purported invention is nonobvi-
ous and deserving of patent protection.
INTRODUCTION
The patent system recently has drawn increased
attention, much of it critical, as several high-pro-
file patents in the Internet arena have been in the
news. Most notably, internet leader Amazon.com
recently won a preliminary injunction against
online bookseller Barnesandnoble.com over patent
rights for its “one-click” technology that allows
Internet customers to buy products with a single
mouse click. Despite Amazon.com’s victory, Ama-
zon.com CEO Jeff Bezos has called for patent
reform, citing concerns over whether the current
patent system could potentially be harmful to the
Internet industry. In a three-page letter posted on
Amazon.com’s Web site, he offered suggestions
for reforming the patent system. His suggestions
include reducing the patent term from 20 to five
years for software and business method patents,
and establishment of a one-month public com-
ment period before a patent could issue.
Articles criticizing the patent system have
appeared in news sources such as the Wall Street
Journal and the New York Times Magazine. An
article entitled “Online Patents: Leave Them
Pending” [1] appeared in the Wall Street Journal.
A spotlighted excerpt of the article asserts that
PATENT ACQUISITION RULES
GOVERNING SOFTWARE AND
BUSINESS METHOD INVENTIONS
“
Congress should declare a moratorium on the
offensive use of software and business method
patents. Only when we are reasonably confident
that regulation will do some good should
Over the last several years, the rules for obtain-
ing patents for software and business method
inventions have loosened to allow easier
106
0163-6804/00/$10.00 © 2000 IEEE
IEEE Communications Magazine • July 2000

Rigor of the subject
matter rules governing
software and business
method inventions
Rigor of the patent
enforcement rules
governing claim
interpretation
Nexus between patents at the frontiers
of protection for software and business
methods and the bottom line, creating
wealth
Through a series
of cases, the
Court of Customs
and Patent
1
0 years ago Stringent
Loose
Distant
Direct
Today
Loose
Stringent
Appeals
ꢀ
Table 1. Patent system changes over the last decade.
developed a test,
called the Free-
man-Walter-Abele
test, to determine
whether
patentability. This section first discusses the
landmark State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signa-
ture Financial Group Inc. case (hereinafter State
Street), which culminated a gradual shift over the
last decade, and then discusses the cases leading
up to State Street.
or the CCPA (predecessor court to the Federal
Circuit), to deem an invention unpatentable.”
The significance of State Street lies in its depar-
ture from past authority, which required satisfac-
tion of a “physicality” requirement in order for
computer software to cross the statutory subject
matter threshold. Under past authority, comput-
er software involving mathematical calculations
had to involve some “transformation or conver-
sion of subject matter representing or constitut-
ing physical activity or objects.”
Prior to State Street, a series of cases governed
the patentability of computer-related inventions
under 35 U.S.C. Section 101. The question of
patentable subject matter for computer-related
inventions under 35 U.S.C. Section 101 began to
be answered when the Supreme Court handed
down its decision in Gottschalk v. Benson in 1972.
This Court held that the mathematical algorithm
involved had no substantial practical application
and stated that “[t]ransformation and reduction
of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the
clue to patentability of a process claim that does
not include specific machines.”
computer-related
subject matter
constituted
In State Street the Federal Circuit examined
whether a general-purpose computer which imple-
ments a business-oriented process is patentable
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. Section 101. To be
patentable an invention must fall into at least one
of the following four statutory categories of
patentable subject matter: process, machine, article
of manufacture, or composition of matter. These
statutory categories have outer boundaries beyond
which an invention may fall into one of the follow-
ing judicially created categories of unpatentable
subject matter: abstract ideas, laws of nature, or
natural phenomena. The State Street decision con-
sidered two subdivisions of the abstract idea cate-
gory of unpatentable subject matter: mathematical
algorithms and business methods.
patentable
subject matter.
The patent at issue in State Street was Signa-
ture Financial’s U. S. Patent Number 5,193,056
(
the ’056 or Boes patent). The ’056 patent dis-
In 1980, the Supreme Court in Diamond v.
Chakrabarty directed the courts to the broad lan-
guage of Section 101 to find statutory subject
matter. In Chakrabarty the Court noted that Sec-
tion 101 has been described by the legislature as
encompassing “anything under the sun that is
made by man.” In 1981, the Supreme Court in
Diamond v. Diehr stated that “a mathematical for-
mula as such is not accorded the protection of
our patent laws.” However, the Court noted that
“when a claim containing a mathematical formula
implements or applies that formula in a structure
or process which, when considered as a whole, is
performing a function which the patent laws were
designed to protect (e.g., transforming or reducing
an article to a different state or thing), then the
claim satisfied the requirements of Section 101.
Through a series of cases, the Court of Customs
and Patent Appeals (CCPA) developed a test for
whether computer-related subject matter consti-
tuted patentable subject matter. The test, Free-
man-Walter-Abele, has been described as follows.
It is first determined whether a mathematical
algorithm is recited directly or indirectly in the
claim. If so, it is next determined whether the
claimed invention as a whole is no more than
the algorithm itself; that is, whether the claim is
directed to a mathematical algorithm that is not
applied to or limited by physical elements or pro-
cess steps. Such claims are nonstatutory. Howev-
er, when the mathematical algorithm is applied
to one or more elements of an otherwise statuto-
ry process claim … the requirements of Section
101 are met [3].
closed a general purpose computer which exe-
cutes a program that determines the percentage
share that each of several funds hold in a port-
folio, tracks any daily activity affecting the port-
folio’s assets, and allocates gains, losses, and
expenses to each of the member funds. In writ-
ing the opinion for the Court, Judge Rich was
not persuaded by State Street’s arguments that
the ’056 patent claims were invalid because they
were directed to the unpatentable subject mat-
ter in the form of mathematical algorithms or
business methods. Even assuming that the inven-
tion at issue did nothing more than present and
solve a mathematical algorithm, the Court found
patentable subject matter because of the utility
of the claimed invention. More specifically, the
Court held that “the transformation of data,
representing discrete dollar amounts, by a
machine through a series of mathematical calcu-
lations into a final share price, constitutes a
practical application of a mathematical algo-
rithm, formula, or calculation, because it pro-
duces a useful, concrete and tangible result — a
final share price momentarily fixed for record-
ing and reporting purposes and even accepted
and relied upon by regulatory authorities and in
subsequent trades.”
With regard to the business method exception
to statutory subject matter, the Federal Circuit
stated that it would take the “opportunity to lay
this ill-conceived exception to rest.” The State
Street Court noted that the “business method
exception has never been invoked by this Court,
IEEE Communications Magazine • July 2000
107

For many years, the Freeman-Walter-Abele
test guided the Patent Office and the Courts in
deciding which computer-related inventions com-
prised patentable subject matter. In 1989, the
Patent Office promulgated guidelines [4] for use
by patent examiners in determining the patentabil-
ity of computer-related inventions that were based
on the Freeman-Walter-Abele test. Unfortunately,
the Freeman-Walter-Abele test proved difficult to
apply, and in In Re Alappat, the Court noted that
the Freeman-Walter-Abele two-part analysis is not
the sole means for determining whether a comput-
er-implemented invention is patentable, but that it
remains a useful tool. Moreover, the Alappat
Court held that a special-purpose computer pro-
grammed to solve a mathematical algorithm is
patentable subject matter.
Soon after the Alappat decision, the Federal
Circuit decision in In re Lowry set in motion a
series of events that laid the groundwork for the
State Street decision. The Court in In re Lowry
held that data structures encoded in computer
memory to permit a computer to run more effi-
ciently “impart a physical organization on the
information stored in memory.” The Court held
that a data structure stored in computer read-
able memory, therefore, constituted patentable
subject matter. In reaching this decision, the
Court did not even consider the Freeman-Wal-
ter-Abele test. Rather, it ruled that a data struc-
ture encoded in computer memory did not
constitute mere printed matter, such as a check-
book stub with printed lines for balance and
deposit amount [5], which was not patentable.
After the In re Lowry ruling the Patent office
quickly acknowledged the patentability of com-
puter software [6].
In 1996, following the Lowry decision, the
Patent Office assembled new guidelines for
examining computer-related inventions. The
Examination Guidelines For Computer-Related
Inventions published by the U. S. Patent &
Trademark Office [7] provide guidance to patent
examiners in reviewing the patentability of com-
puter-related inventions. The guidelines
acknowledge that “claims to processes which do
nothing more than solve mathematical problems
or manipulate abstract ideas or concepts are
more difficult to analyze [for patentability pur-
poses].” Nevertheless, the guidelines indicate
that to be statutory, a computer-related process
must do one of the following:
questions remained as to whether a patent claim
must recite the use of a programmed computer
to solve a mathematical algorithm, as was the
case in State Street, in order to constitute
patentable subject matter. For instance, there
was an open question as to whether a process to
generate and store information in a physical
medium constituted patentable subject matter.
The Court in Excell v. AT&T answered that
question in the affirmative.
The Court in AT&T affirmed the patentabili-
ty of a software-process-based invention that
produced a useful, concrete, and tangible result,
this time claimed as a method. The invention at
issue in U.S. Patent No. 5,333,184 involved an
algorithm that identified a long distance tele-
phone caller’s primary inter-exchange carrier
(PIC) and encoded a physical record with the
PIC identifier. The record is useful for billing
purposes, for example. The Court stated that
although State Street involved claims for a pro-
grammed computer, the same subject matter
analysis should apply to claims directed to a
method. Significantly, the opinion specifically
stated that the “physical transformation” of sub-
ject matter from one state to another is not a
requirement for the existence of patentable
statutory subject matter.
In the wake of the AT&T decision, which
explicitly eliminates the physicality requirement,
the Patent Office has decided to again modify its
computer-related subject matter guidelines. In a
Business Method Patent Initiative released on
March 29, 2000, the U.S. Patent & Trademark
Office stated that the Examination Guidelines for
Computer-Related Inventions and the relevant
training examples will be revised in light of the
State Street and AT&T decisions. However, as of
the date of this writing, no further details have
been given.
By eliminating
any form of
physicality
requirement,
e-commerce
business method
patents are
issuing with
claims that have
a closer nexus to
actual business
and generation of
revenues.
No longer are
patents restricted
to the rarified
realm of
technology. Now,
e-commerce
patents can hit
the bottom line
more directly.
THE EFFECT OF STATE STREET:
E-COMMERCE PATENTS THAT HAVE A
CLOSER NEXUS TO BUSINESS AND THE
GENERATION OF WEALTH
The potential impact of the State Street deci-
sion can be appreciated by examining several
recent business method patents in the e-com-
merce arena. By eliminating any form of physi-
cality requirement, e-commerce business
method patents are issuing with claims that
have a closer nexus to actual business and gen-
eration of revenues. No longer are patents
restricted to the rarified realm of technology.
Now, e-commerce patents can hit the bottom
line more directly.
Prior to State Street, the patents involved in
cases such as In Re Iwahashi, In Re Freeman, In
Re Walter, and In Re Abele discussing
patentability of computer software and mathe-
matical algorithms were directed at true tech-
nological inventions. For example, the claims in
the patent application at issue in In Re Iwa-
hashi were directed at algorithms related to an
auto-correlation unit for use in pattern recogni-
tion to obtain auto-correlation coefficients as
for stored signal samples. The claims in the
patent application at issue in In Re Walter were
directed at the general area of seismic prospect-
•
“Result in a physical transformation outside
the computer for which a practical applica-
tion in the technological arts is either dis-
closed in the specification (or would have
been obvious)
“Be limited by the language in the claim to
be a practical application within the techno-
logical arts”
•
Furthermore, “what is determinative is not how
the computer does the process, but what does
the computer do to achieve a practical applica-
tion.”
Thus, even before the ruling in State Street,
both the Courts and the Patent Office had loos-
ened the rules governing the patentability of
computer-related inventions. In fact, the State
Street court cited the 1996 guidelines with
approval. Even after the decision, however,
108
IEEE Communications Magazine • July 2000

ing and surveying, and involved a mathematical
algorithm for unscrambling seismic source
waves generated and transmitted downward
into the earth which have been reflected by
subsurface formations and anomalies. In In Re
Freeman, the claims of the patent application at
issue were directed at a system for typesetting
alphanumeric information, using a computer-
based control system in conjunction with a pho-
totypesetter of conventional design. The
invention in In Re Abele was in the field of
image processing in the area of computerized
axial tomography (CAT) scans. The claims at
issue were directed at an improvement in com-
puter tomography whereby the exposure to X-
ray is reduced while the reliability of the
produced image is improved.
axial topography of In Re Abele, for example.
Rather, e-commerce inventions often build on
prior technology innovations.
As patent
acquisition rules
for computer
related inventions
have become less
stringent during
the past
Therefore, it is not surprising that e-commerce
patents are perceived by many commentators as
antithetical to the promotion of innovation. If the
natural outgrowth of this communications medi-
um called the Internet is to encourage new forms
of communication and new business models, what
is the benefit to society of smothering these natu-
ral results under a layer of business-related e-
commerce patents? After all, these commentators
might argue, science and technology already have
put the medium in place. No further encourage-
ment, through patents, is needed to convince peo-
ple to actually use it.
decade, rules
governing claim
interpretation in
patent litigation
have moved in
the opposite
More recently, patents have been issuing in e-
commerce areas such as online buying, online
reverse auctions, and online advertising. As
mentioned earlier, U.S. Patent Number
THE TREND TOWARD MORE
RESTRICTIVE CLAIM INTERPRETATION
5
,960,411 issued to Amazon.com is directed at a
As patent acquisition rules for computer-related
inventions have become less stringent during the
past decade, rules governing claim interpretation
in patent litigation have moved in the opposite
direction. It is the claims of the patent, much
like the metes and bounds of a real estate deed,
that define the technology that the owner of a
patent containing those claims may exclude oth-
ers from utilizing. The invention, as well as the
process of making and method of using the tech-
nology, recited in any given claim must be dis-
closed in full, clear, concise, and exact terms in
the specification.
The general parameters of claim interpreta-
tion have been redefined by recent cases. Mark-
man v. Westview Instruments established that
claim interpretation is a matter of law decided
by a judge rather than a jury. Prior to the Mark-
man ruling, there was some doubt as to the
extent of jury involvement in claim interpreta-
tion. Juries were considered by many to be
more likely to interpret patent claims broadly.
The Markman decision held that any infringe-
ment analysis involves first interpreting the
claim language to discern its meaning and then
comparing the claim language as interpreted to
an accused infringing device. Significantly, the
court held that the interpretation step is to be
performed by the judge. In effect, the interpre-
tation step controls the comparison step since
an interpretation that fails to encompass the
accused infringing device must inevitably lead to
a finding of noninfringement. Courts following
the Markman case have made the interpretation
of the scope and meaning of the claims of a
patent a threshold question in patent enforce-
ment proceedings.
method for placing a purchase order over the
Internet. Specifically, the patent is directed at
the use of a single action, such as single mouse
click to place the purchase order. U.S. Patent
Number 6,041,308 issued to Priceline.com is
directed to a reverse auction process that allows
buyers to submit conditional purchase orders for
potential acceptance by one or more sellers.
Also issued to Priceline.com is U.S. Patent Num-
ber 5,897,620, which is directed at providing a
system and method whereby an airline may cre-
ate and sell unspecified-time airline tickets cor-
responding to special fare listings. In the
advertising area, Cybergold has been issued U.S.
Patent Number 5,855,008, directed at systems
and methods that pay individuals to view adver-
tisements over the Internet.
direction.
Why have e-commerce patents fomented so
much controversy lately? It seems that patents in
this arena are perceived as failing in their essen-
tial purpose: to promote the progress of science
and the useful arts [8]. E-commerce is often con-
sidered to be synonymous with the Internet. In
essence, the Internet is a vast communications
medium. It is the culmination of decades of
technological innovation and millions of dollars
spent on a Pentagon-funded communications
project. In 1994, Timothy J. Berners-Lee created
the World Wide Web’s seminal client and server
software, including hypertext markup language
(
HTML) and the protocol responsible for mov-
ing information around the global system
HTTP) [9]. At the time, Berners-Lee was work-
(
ing at CERN, the European Laboratory for Par-
ticle Physics in Switzerland.
However, e-commerce patents generally are
not directed to technology innovations within this
communication medium. Rather, they often are
directed to the manner of communications made
possible by this communication medium. The
Priceline.com reverse auction patent addresses a
new way for people to conduct reverse auctions
on a network. The Cybergold patent covers a way
to encourage people to view advertising materials
on a network. Although these inventions are
implemented with computers, they are not in the
same high technology category as the auto-corre-
lation unit of In Re Iwahashi or the computerized
The central question of the post-Markman
era has been what relative weight should be
given to the various materials that courts use to
interpret claims. This question was addressed
shortly after Markman by Vitronics Corp. v.
Conceptronic, Inc. In Vitronics, the Federal Cir-
cuit made unmistakably clear the primacy of
intrinsic evidence over extrinsic evidence. Intrin-
sic evidence is the evidence created during the
preparation of a patent application and its
prosecution before the United States Patent
and Trademark Office, and includes the claims
IEEE Communications Magazine • July 2000
109

and specification of the patent application as
well as the file history of the application. Extrin-
sic evidence refers to all evidence other than
intrinsic evidence, including expert testimony.
The Vitronics Court held that intrinsic evidence
will be of foremost importance in claim inter-
pretation during enforcement, stating that
One scholarly critic of the patent system has
observed that the problem is not so much the
issuance of business method patents per se, but
rather the issuance of bad business method
patents [11]. Specifically, the problem is the
issuance of patents that never should have been
issued in the first place because they are obvi-
ous in view of the prior art. Moreover, our sys-
tem of enforcement in the courts is so slow,
expensive, and unpredictable that even an
improvidently issued patent can be a significant
impediment to progress. One proposed solution
is to overhaul the patent system to encourage
the Patent Office to more closely scrutinize the
more important patent applications and to
encourage participation by third parties in pre-
grant patent office proceedings so as to point
out prior art that the Patent Office otherwise
might have missed.
Thus, although changes in patent claim inter-
pretation by the courts somewhat balances the
increased scope of patentable subject matter, the
burden imposed by questionable patents is great.
The solution may be to roll back patent protec-
tion to exclude certain types of business meth-
ods, or to implement procedures to improve the
examination of patents by the Patent Office, or
some hybrid combination of these solutions. In
any case, the debate is far from over. Stay tuned!
The present
concern over
e-commerce
patents is well
placed.
“
intrinsic evidence is the most significant source
of the legally operative meaning of disputed
claim language … In most situations, an analy-
sis of the intrinsic evidence alone will resolve
any ambiguity in a disputed claim term. In such
circumstances, it is improper to rely on extrinsic
evidence.” The Court particularly emphasized
the importance of the specification (the portion
of the patent application containing a written
description of the invention) [10]: “[T]he speci-
fication is always highly relevant to the claim
construction analysis. Usually it is dispositive; it
is the single best guide to the meaning of a dis-
puted term.” The Court also made it clear that
prosecution history (all application papers and
communications pertaining to a patent between
an applicant and the Patent Office, which may
contain statements made by an applicant limit-
ing the scope of his/her invention) should also
be looked to whenever it is in evidence, and
noted that such history “is often of critical sig-
nificance.”
The effect of the Markman and Vitronics
decisions has been more rigorous, and, in many
cases, more restricted claim interpretation dur-
ing patent enforcement. In light of these deci-
sions, e-commerce companies attempting to
obtain patent protection should ensure that their
patent applications are well drafted and skillfully
prosecuted to issuance. Vitronics makes clear
that skillful drafting and prosecution are the best
methods to obtain the widest possible breadth of
interpretation from courts. Patent holders
attempting to rely on subsequent extrinsic evi-
dence such as expert testimony may find them-
selves unpleasantly surprised that their
e-commerce business method patent is not as
broad as they believed.
E-commerce is an
engine of
economic
growth. However,
the solution
proposed
by many
commentators,
curtailing patent
protection for
business method
patents, might
just miss the
point.
REFERENCES
1] L. Lesig, “Online Patents: Leave Them Pending,” Wall St.
[
J., Mar. 23.
[
2] J. Gleick, “Patently Absurd,” New York Times Mag.,
Mar. 12, 2000.
[3] In Re Schrader, 22 F. 3d 290, 292 (emphasis added).
4] Patentable Subject Matter: Mathematical Algorithms
and Computer Programs, 1106 Off. Gaz. Pat. & Trade-
mark Office 5, Sept. 5, 1989.
[
[5] In Re Sterling, 70 F.2d 910, CCPA, 1934.
[6] In Re Beauregard, 53 F.3d 1583, Fed. Cir., 1995.
[
[
7] “U.S. PTO Examination Guidelines for Computer-Related
Inventions,” 61 Federal Register 7478, 1996.
8] Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United
States provides “The Congress shall have power … To
promote the progress of science and useful arts, by
securing for limited times to authors and inventors the
exclusive right to their respective writings and discover-
ies.”
[
[
[
9] S. Reiss, “St. Tim of the Web,” Forbes, Nov. 15, 1999,
p. 314.
10] See 35 U.S.C. Sec. 112, “Complete Description of the
Requirements for the Specification.”
11] R. P. Merges, “As Many as Six Impossible Patents Before
Breakfast: Property Rights for Business Concepts and
Patent System Reform,” 14 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 577, 1999.
A QUESTION OF
BALANCE OR PROCEDURE?
The present concern over e-commerce patents
is well placed. E-commerce is an engine of eco-
nomic growth. However, the solution proposed
by many commentators, curtailing patent pro-
tection for business method patents, might just
miss the point. Innovations in business meth-
ods are innovations just the same, and they
deserve protection pursuant to Article I, Sec-
tion 8, of the Constitution. The expansion in
the scope of patentable subject matter in the
software and business method domains is bal-
anced somewhat by a corresponding restriction
of the scope of claim interpretation during
patent enforcement in the courts. Nevertheless,
the e-commerce patents are perceived by many
as problematic. Perhaps the problem has to do
more with administrative process than with
patentable subject matter. The patent system is
ponderous and slow, and the Internet economy
is lightning fast.
BIOGRAPHIES
STEPHEN C. DURANT (sdurant@mofo.com) is a partner at Mor-
rison & Foerster and head of the Electronics, Software, and
Telecommunications Patent Group. He earned a B.S. degree
in electrical engineering from the University of Notre Dame
and a J.D. from Cornell Law School. He is registered to prac-
tice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. He prac-
tices in the fields of electronics, software, and
telecommunications, developing patent portfolio and patent
licensing and patent enforcement strategies for technology
companies in all phases of development, from emerging-
growth enterprises to large corporations.
THOMAS C. CHUANG is an associate at Morrison & Foerster
and a member of the Electronics, Software, and Telecom-
munications Patent Group. He earned a B.S. in electrical
engineering from the University of Illinois in 1992, and a
J.D., cum laude, from the University of Minnesota in 1997.
He is registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office.
110
IEEE Communications Magazine • July 2000