Worlds Inc (WDDD)

[22na22]

[QUOTE]

101 DOES NOT REQUIRE COMBINATORY PATENTS NOR ONLY COVERED BUSINESS METHODS

Are you not reading? I literally did not once say they require combinatory patents. I said this:

"So I'm not sure if he is saying that the CAFC cannot kill patents on 101 - they did with VRNG - but that the patents involved more replicate VirnetX (in which the patents were not combinatory, and were unobvious), than Vringo (in which the patents were combinatory, and were obvious)."

I'm assuming you literally did not read what I wrote.

WDDD's patents are more like VirnetX's, which is a similar case where the 101 did not kill the patents. No one is saying they cannot kill the patents. Just that the case is more similar to VirnetX's in history because the judge literally invoked 101 partially due to the fact that VRNG's patents were combinatory. It 100% has an effect.

So when you consider VirnetX and Vringo, there's a net positive historical bearing on WDDD's case because the judges didn't invoke 101 for more similar patents (VirnetX) and did invoke 101 for less similar patents (Vringo).