Dennis Crouch, writing on *Pantently-O*, points out one of the questions the court intends to address in an upcoming *en banc* review:
> What test should the court adopt to determine whether a computer-implemented invention is a patent ineligible “abstract idea”; and when, if ever, does the presence of a computer in a claim lend patent eligibility to an otherwise patent-ineligible idea?
The case is *CLS Bank Int’l. v. Alice Corp.* if you want to follow along at home.
Nilay Patel on [The Verge](http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/17/3250148/oracle-tells-court-patent-blogger-florian-mueller-is-a-consultant):
> [Florian Mueller] regularly quoted in a huge variety of outlets, including Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times, as a “patent expert” or “patent consultant,” but almost never as “paid Oracle consultant” or “paid Microsoft consultant.” That’s simply misleading, and presumably the sort of under-the-table influence Judge Alsup intended to flush out with his order. We’ll see how the media — and Mueller — react.
Mr. Mueller is frequently held out as the *the* expert on patents in the tech space. That has always been strange to me since, though patent law is not really my practice, I have heard some in the area talk about him “less than positively”[^nice].
[^nice]: That is about the nicest way I can say it.