Skip to content

Vincent LoTempio

My mission as an IP Attorney is to help people recognize, protect and profit from their good ideas. As a Registered Patent Attorney based in Buffalo, New York, I focus on all types of Intellectual Property law. As an IP attorney, I file patent and trademark applications in the United States and abroad. I manage large corporate patent and trademark portfolios, and have established associations with hundreds of Intellectual Property law firms around the world. I have extensive experience in patent and trademark prosecution, patent and trademark infringement litigation, trademark registration and copyright registration. Call me TOLL FREE: 1-800-866-0039 to protect your idea today. LoTempio Law Website File A Patent File A Trademark File A Copyright YouTube Twitter


  1. Debra Zavala
    December 18, 2009 @ 12:50 pm

    Help me understand your position on the Bilski case. How will it’s rejection have a wide range of negative impact? I don’t understand how a ruling against a way to hedge against risk in commodities trading can affect software company patents….Software is concrete, a method of investing is subjective….how are the two related?

  2. Vincent G. LoTempio
    December 29, 2009 @ 6:44 pm

    Thanks for the comment, and the question you ask is the same one that the Supreme Court has to rule on: should a method of doing business be connected somehow to something tangible such as a machine or an article of manufacture?
    In the Bilski case the Federal Circuit Court has set forth a single test for determining the patentability of processes: a process is patentable if “(1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing.”
    The question that is commonly raised: does a software patent need to be tied to some tangible machine and is the fact that runs on a computer enough to meet this test.
    The Supreme Court has to answer this question: If you are the first person to invent a new way doing anything, why should you not benefit from it regardless of whether it is tied to a tangible thing or not?
    We are living more and more in a virtual world and we don’t even know what the future holds as far as what new innovations are in store for us. My argument is that the Supreme Court should not limit his thinking to the tangible. Whoever invents any new, useful and non-obvious thing first, they should be allowed to patent it!