Posts Tagged: "software patent"

It is probably fair to say that Matt Levy’s views are contrary to mine with respect to many patent related matters, but particularly so with respect to software patents… One of the things I have always liked about Levy is that while we do disagree about much, we do so in a way that is not disagreeable. I also greatly appreciate how he always tries to work with me to figure out at what point in our analysis we go separate ways, which leads to some very interesting and lively conversations (as you might imagine)… Recently we were swapping e-mails and something came up that I found particularly intriguing. I told him I thought we really need to take this on the record and he agreed. What follows is our conversation.

it is absolutely critical that computer related inventions describe the technology to the greatest extent possible, focusing on as much that is tangible as possible.

The USPTO Memorandum of November 2, 2016 as to Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decisions (“USPTO Memo”) inappropriately attributes the phrase “computer-related technology” to McRO, Inc. dba Planet Blue v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 120 USPQ2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The phrase “computer-related technology” does not appear in McRO or even in Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014); rather, it appears in Enfish, LLC, v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed Cir. 2016) and only after Enfish appropriately cites Alice.

On Monday, March 13th, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision upholding the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) finding that a patent application covering a patient health information management system is invalid under the Alice standard. The decision is a disturbing reminder that, despite recent cases in which the Federal Circuit has overturned PTAB decisions, short-sightedness in the U.S. judiciary continues to negatively impact important burgeoning sectors of innovation.

The absurd way in which important players in the U.S. patent system view the patentability of software innovations will undoubtedly harm our country’s chances of benefiting economically from the coming AI boom. Which is too bad, because that same Accenture study on AI’s economic benefits to the UK predicts that AI could add as much as $8.3 trillion to the American economy, thanks in no small part to “a strong entrepreneurial business climate and advanced infrastructure position.” But that strong entrepreneurial business climate is undercut by the weakening of patent protections for software, which makes up much of the foundation of artificial intelligence technologies.

Asking whether the industry has gone too far to eradicate weak patents misses the point entirely, and to some extent will allow those who want the patent system to continue its march off the cliff to inappropriately claim the moral high ground. Regardless of how you prefer to characterize problem patents, whether it be as weak, bad, low quality, or invalid, no one wants those problematic patents to issue or be used to harass individuals or businesses as they sometimes have been used by bad actors. But that begs the real question. In an attempt to eradicate the system from those problematic patents have things gotten out of control and, thereby caused collateral damage in an indiscriminate way to all patents, including high quality, strong patents? To that question the answer must be a resounding yes!

Guidelines, set to go into effect on April 1st in China, continue to leave the window open for software and business method patents. For software patents, patent applicants will be able to claim a medium plus computer program process instead of claiming means plus function, a term which has typically been narrowly construed by SIPO examiners. As ZY Partners’ analysis notes, previously ineligible claims directed at “a computer program product” or “a machine-readable medium” will now be eligible for patent protection in China…. Given this trend towards delegitimizing the patentability of inventions within valuable growth sectors in the U.S., it’s particularly galling to see that China, often portrayed as the United States’ top economic competitor, has been moving in the opposite direction, even if only slightly. Last October, China’s State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) released revised guidelines for its patent examiners and some were quick to note that the revised guidelines were friendlier to both software and business method patents.

JP Morgan has created revolutionary software capable of doing in seconds the same work that it would take a large team of lawyers 360,000 hours to complete. Clearly, this extraordinary software solution for engaging in tedious contract review is nothing more than an abstract idea and is not the type of thing that can be patented in America. The United States Supreme Court has put an end to these types of revolutionary innovations being patented, and if the hard working patent examiners at the United States Patent and Trademark Office make a mistake and issue a patent on such a ridiculously simple innovation that a second year engineering student could clearly have programmed over a weekend while sipping latte’s at the corner coffee shop the PTAB, some district court or the Supreme Court will step in and set the record straight.

Mathematics has long been accepted as a tool to model the physical reality. For many it is hard to grasp that math actually “does something.” The reality is that mathematics based instructions in computers generate signals that are useful and used. This type of mathematics may be called “operational mathematics.” Operational math already replaces devices that used to be made from valves and gears or from electronic components. Operational mathematics also enables new devices that were previously unimaginable.

The impact of Alice has been just what one would expect. The decisions of the USPTO examining corps, USPTO Patent Trial & Appeal Board, and lower courts have been wildly inconsistent. Far too many worthy inventions are being lost. Perhaps worse, the predictability innovators and investors in research and development require to effectively navigate the patent system has been eliminated. Change is sorely needed and overdue.

I am particularly concerned about the impact this case law has on the patent application process. Instead of focusing on novelty and clarity, examiners and applicants alike spend time struggling to make sense of Section 101 jurisprudence. That is a serious misallocation of the limited resources of both patent examiners and applicants, leading to longer examination times and less reliable patent grants. Delays in patent review and patent grants can interrupt a startup’s lifecycle, negatively influencing employment growth, sales, and subsequent innovation. This is just one of several factors lengthening patent examination, but it is one that may warrant a congressional response.

IPO supports legislation because the patent eligibility test created by the U.S. Supreme Court is difficult to apply and has yielded unpredictable results for patent owners in the courts and at the USPTO. IPO’s proposed legislative language would address these concerns by reversing the Supreme Court decisions and restoring the scope of subject matter eligibility to that intended by Congress in passing the Patent Act of 1952; defining the scope of subject matter eligibility more clearly and in a technology-neutral manner; requiring evaluation of subject matter eligibility for the invention as a whole; and simplifying the subject matter eligibility analysis for the USPTO, courts, patent applicants, patentees, practitioners, and the public by preventing any consideration of “inventive concept” and patentability requirements under sections 102, 103, and 112 in the eligibility analysis.

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017, at 2pm ET, please join Gene Quinn (IPWatchdog) for a free webinar discussion on best practices for software patents and predictions for 2017… Since May 2016, Judges Moore, Taranto, Hughes, Chen, Newman, O’Malley, Reyna, Stoll, Wallach and Plager have all sign on to decisions that found at least some software patent claims to be patent eligible. That brings the total to ten (10) judges of the Federal Circuit indisputably in favor of patent eligibility for software in at least some instances over the last eight months.

In late October, China’s State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) released a set of guidelines for Chinese patent examiners that revises the last guidelines put in place in 2010. Although SIPO has made the revised guidelines available online in the Chinese language only, analysis of those guidelines by the European Patent Office (EPO) and others indicates that, in some important ways, the new guidelines represent a veritable inverse of the current patent examination environment seen here in the United States… China is about to become friendlier to software patents in particular and patent owners more generally by reducing the complexity of prosecution procedures and making more information publicly available. Given the large number of patent applications being filed with China’s patent office, a high percentage of which are not filed with foreign offices as well, and the growing preference for China as a patent infringement litigation venue, it’s likely that these new guidelines are further proof of the growing divide of IP regimes in the United States and China which, if left unchecked, will probably be to the detriment of the U.S. and its economic prospects in future years.

Part of the problem with the debate over “software patents” has been the near complete failure to accurately describe what these patents protect. Opponents of software patents frequently describe these patents as protecting nothing more than “mathematics” or logic. This is plainly false. Software is a valuable, real-world, technological innovation that is used in everything from vacuums to cars to computers to phones.