Today's Date: April 20, 2014 Search | Home | Contact | Services | Patent Attorney | Patent Search | Provisional Patent Application | Patent Application | Software Patent | Confidentiality Agreements

Posts Tagged ‘ software patent ’

Software May be Patented in Asia, but the Details Remain Unclear

Posted: Wednesday, Jul 17, 2013 @ 10:00 am | Written by Chris Neumeyer | 2 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: China, Chris Neumeyer, Federal Circuit, Guest Contributors, International, IP News, Articles, Patents, Software, US Supreme Court

In the United States, attorneys, judges and others have struggled for decades to determine when, if ever, computer programs or software should be eligible for patent protection.  In the 1960’s the U.S. Patent Office declared that software could not be patented.  Since then, a series of court decisions have rejected that view and established that one may definitely patent software in the U.S., although the exact requirements remain unclear and critics increasingly demand that it should not be patentable.

As a starting point, 35 U.S.C. §101 provides that any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or new and useful improvement thereof, is eligible for patent protection, subject to other requirements of the Patent Act (that is, §101 is just the threshold test for patentability).  Congress has never stated any limitations to the patentable categories of §101 and case law has only recognized three categories of exceptions – subject matter that may not be patented: laws of nature, physical phenomena and abstract ideas.  Computer software is often found to be ineligible on the ground that it comprises abstract ideas, but courts have struggled to provide a precise formula or definition for abstract ideas.

Patent Turmoil: Navigating the Software Patent Quagmire

Posted: Monday, Jul 15, 2013 @ 8:00 am | Written by Gene Quinn | 39 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Bilski, Computers, Federal Circuit, Gene Quinn, IP News, Articles, Patent Prosecution, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Patents, Software, Software Patent Basics, US Supreme Court, USPTO

The law as it relates to software has been in flux over the last 10 years. Many older patent applications simply do not have enough detail to satisfy the current requirements to obtain a patent, although when drafted they would have been sufficient to satisfy the requirements then in place. Describing software as a pure method claim has not worked for a long time despite the fact that in reality software is really a method. Much more than a cursory description of software as a series of steps is required in order to have hope of obtaining patent protection for software.

Indeed, ever since the Federal Circuit en banc decision in Bilski, claims have been required to be tethered to tangible components, such as data storage devices, processors, databases, controllers, servers and the like. Unfortunately, however, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board at the United States Patent and Trademark Office now has taken the position that they will ignore the tangible components within a computer implemented method claim and then look to see what remains before determining whether the claim is patent eligible. See PTAB Kills Software.

Of course, after you remove or ignore the tangible components what remains is a naked process, which is patent ineligible. Thus, deciding to ignore tangible components leads to the inescapable conclusion that no software is patent eligible. Such disingenuous reasoning has the effect of punishing applicants for writing claims as the Patent Office has mandated ever since the machine-or-transformation test was first announced by the Federal Circuit in Bilski. The test announced in SAP/Versata, which was the first covered business method review decision announced by the PTAB, cannot be the correct test, and ultimately the decision (or at least the rationale) will be reversed. Any test that has the net effect of rendering all software patent ineligible, like the SAP/Versata test, is simply not correct as I will explain more clearly below.

Did the PTAB Just Kill Software Patents?

Posted: Wednesday, Jun 12, 2013 @ 5:38 pm | Written by Gene Quinn | 224 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Computers, Gene Quinn, IP News, Articles, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Patents, Software, USPTO

On Tuesday, June 11, 2013, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board issued a ruling in SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development Group, Inc., which is the result of a Covered Business Method challenge to U.S. Patent No. 6,553,350 filed by SAP on September 16, 2012. The PTAB, per Administrative Patent Judge Michael Tierney, determined that “Versata’s ’350 claims 17, and 26-29 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” Looking more closely at the ruling, however, makes it clear just how significant this ruling will be. The breadth of the 101 determination is shocking and virtually guarantees that 101 will be used by patent examiners to effectively prevent software patents from issuing altogether.

In a nutshell, the PTAB ignored all the recited tangible computer elements embodied in the claims. Once the specifically articulated and necessary structure is ignored the PTAB then concluded that the claims protect only an abstract idea.

In order for there to be infringement each and every limitation would have to be found in the accused infringing method. So under what authority does the PTAB ignore specifically recited structure? The authority that the PTAB seems to be relying on to ignore claim terms is unclear and not explained in the opinion in any satisfactory way. It does, however, seem that the fact that the invention can be implemented in any type of computer system or processing environment lead the PTAB to treat the method as one that could be performed on a “general purpose computer,” rather than a specific purpose computer. Thus, the PTAB picks up on the arbitrary and erroneous distinctions between general purpose computer and specific purpose computer without as much as a thought and wholly without factual explanation.

Kiwi Chameleon? New Zealand Proposes Patent Changes

Posted: Monday, Jun 3, 2013 @ 10:00 am | Written by Matt Adams | 2 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Guest Contributors, International, IP News, Articles, Patents, Software

The New Zealand Government recently announced a proposed change to patent law involving the patentability of computer programs. The Government is calling it a clarification of the law. One opposition party is calling it a humiliating backdown. Others see it as unequivocally ruling out software patents in New Zealand.

How can the Patents Bill appear so different to so many people? Why is it moving so slowly through the parliamentary process? Have we at last found the mythical kiwi chameleon?

The current law

The Patents Act 1953 defines an invention as any “manner of new manufacture”. Nobody looks at this literal definition any more. What is patentable subject matter and what is not patentable subject matter is defined by case law.

USPTO: No Change to Software Patentability Evaluation

Posted: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 @ 7:35 am | Written by Gene Quinn | 10 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Gene Quinn, IP News, Articles, Patent Prosecution, Patents, Software, USPTO

In a one-page memorandum to the Patent Examining Corps dated May 13, 2013, Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy Drew Hirshfeld had a simple message to respond to the Federal Circuit’s en banc non-decision in CLS Bank v. Alice Corp. The message was this: “there is no change in examination procedure for evaluating subject matter eligibility.” (emphasis in the original)

This is hardly a surprise given that there were 7 different opinions with only one opinion garnering more than 5 out of 10 Judges. The sole opinion that achieved a majority was a mere 58 words in length and did nothing more than explain that given the fracture of the Court all that could reasonably be said was that the decision of the district court had been affirmed by an equally divided Court, which unfortunately rendered the claims all patent ineligible.

In his opinion Chief Judge Rader explained in footnote 1: “though much is published today discussing the proper approach to the patent eligibility inquiry, nothing said today beyond our judgment has the weight of precedent.”

What Happened to Judge Lourie in CLS Bank v. Alice Corp?

Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 @ 7:45 am | Written by Sue D. Nym | 109 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Computers, Federal Circuit, Guest Contributors, IP News, Articles, Patents, Software

Chief Judge Rader’s band De Novo should play a dirge tonight.

On May 10, the Federal Circuit issued its en banc opinion in CLS Bank.  Within 48 hours, I had twice read the 135 page decision.  It may be a bullet to the head of the software industry.  Don’t take my word for it:  four different judges say so:

And let’s be clear: if all of these claims, including the system claims, are not patent-eligible, this case is the death of hundreds of thousands of patents, including all business method, financial system, and software patents as well as many computer implemented and telecommunications patents. If all of the claims of these four patents are ineligible, so too are the 320,799 patents which were granted from 1998-2011 in the technology area “Electrical Computers, Digital Processing Systems, Information Security, Error/Fault Handling.” Every patent in this technology category covers inventions directed to computer software or to hardware that implements software. In 2011 alone, 42,235 patents were granted in this area. This would render ineligible nearly 20% of all the patents that actually issued in 2011. If the reasoning of Judge Lourie’s opinion were adopted, it would decimate the electronics and software industries. There are, of course, software, financial system, business method and telecom patents in other technology classes which would also be at risk. So this is quite frankly a low estimate. There has never been a case which could do more damage to the patent system than this one.[1]

That parade of horribles is not entirely fair to Judge Lourie’s concurrence.  Judge Lourie based his opinion on the fact that the disputed patent is directed not just to electronics, but to an insignificant use of modern electronics to implement an arguably basic financial transaction.  I doubt that Judge Lourie would expand the holding in CLS Bank far beyond that specific fact pattern.  Nevertheless, as quoted above, the dissenting judges do not share even this much optimism.

The Alice in Wonderland En Banc Decision by the Federal Circuit in CLS Bank v. Alice Corp

Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 @ 3:16 pm | Written by John Kong | 22 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Federal Circuit, Guest Contributors, IP News, Articles, Patent Litigation, Patents, Software, US Supreme Court, Westerman Hattori Daniels & Adrian

After the Federal Circuit issued its en banc decision on May 10, 2013 in CLS Bank v. Alice Corp, the patent owner Alice Corp must be feeling like Alice in Alice in Wonderland, bewildered and frightened by the fantastical situation in which they find themselves:

(1) “bewildered” because an equally divided Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that Alice’s claimed system to tangible machine components including a first party device, a data storage unit, a second party device, a computer, and a communications controller, programmed with specialized functions consistent with detailed algorithms disclosed in the patent, constitutes a patent ineligible “abstract idea;”

(2) “frightened” because, as Judge Moore puts it, “this case is the death of hundreds of thousands of patents, including all business method, financial system, and software patents as well as many computer implemented and telecommunications patents” (Moore Op. at 2); and

Is IBM’s Watson Still Patent Eligible?

Posted: Monday, May 13, 2013 @ 7:45 am | Written by Gene Quinn | 36 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Companies We Follow, Computers, Federal Circuit, Gene Quinn, IBM, IP News, Articles, Patentability, Patents, Software

By now most are likely already familiar with the unfortunate reality that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a non-decision in CLS Bank v. Alice Corporation on Friday, May 10, 2013. There were 10 judges who heard the case en banc, with 7 of the 10 finding that the method claims and computer-readable medium claims were not patent eligible. While there may be reasonable room for a difference of opinion relative to those claims, it was the system claims that specifically and clearly recited tangible structure that has thrown the patent law of software into such disarray. 5 Judges would have found that the systems claims were patent ineligible (Judges Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna and Wallach), and 5 Judges would have found the systems claims were patentable subject matter (Chief Judge Rader, Judges Newman, Moore, Linn and O’Malley). For more see Federal Circuit Nightmare in CLS Bank and 5 CAFC Judges Say Computer Patentable, Not Software and Did the CAFC Ignore the Supreme Court in CLS Bank?

Today, however, I want to write about one of the more bizarre passages I have ever seen in any decision, and then pose an almost unthinkable question: Is IBM’s Watson still patent eligible in the view of Judges Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna and Wallach?

First, let’s start with the passage. Judge Lourie, who was joined by Judges Dyk, Prost, Reyna and Wallach, actually wrote: “At its most basic, a computer is just a calculator capable of performing mental steps faster than a human could. Unless the claims require a computer to perform operations that are not merely accelerated calculations, a computer does not itself confer patent eligibility.”