A “match” only occurs when the system determines that Person A and Person B both have .
In that case, the Court refused to allow a patent that was simply a “method of organizing human activity,” since that method was too abstract.
Now, here comes Alfred Pirri Jr, a mild-mannered “single man living in the New York tri-state area.” Pirri had some difficulty finding a date — notably, he “keenly noted through his personal experiences that, although there were plenty of single people living in New York City, there were very few efficient ways a person could use to meet single people in order to date them.” In particular, Pirri lamented that “In a crowded bar, a person could be standing 10-feet from the person’s future spouse and never know it.” Around 2006, Pirri then had the idea – of reverse online dating as described above although he never filed for patent protection, he did consult with a patent attorney who “confirmed that no identical nor similar ideas were ever disclosed in registered patents, pending patent applications and non-patent publications.” Although Pirri kept his idea quite secret, he did disclose the details of his idea to his personal counselor Joanne Richards (a licensed clinical social worker).
You can read Claim 1 for yourself, but my quick review lets me classify the patent as quite low quality; very difficult to infringe; and likely invalid under 101 (abstract idea).
This threat of litigation can be seen as utilizing courts to impose additional costs on competitors.
The number for each year is the first design patent issued that year. Design patents refer to any new ornamental design for an item.The design patent protects only the appearance of an article, but not its structural or functional features. That’s one of the questions at the heart of the dispute between the new Tinder for the Jewish community, JSwipe, and the incumbent dating site for the same community, JDate.Spark Networks is the parent company of JDate, and its choice to invoke a patent secured in 1999 has the broadest implications for the innovation community.The Supreme Court clarified its stance on patents last year (more below), but that doesn’t mean that all the patents that ran afoul of the Supreme Court’s ruling went away.