Posts Tagged: "software patents"

When the Supreme Court believes that the Federal Circuit has made an error, they will reverse and remand with broad guidance, but often are not able to determine what the proper test should be. The Supreme Court wants, and expects, the Federal Circuit to determine the proper test because, after all, it is the Federal Circuit that is charged with being America’s chief patent court. But the Federal Circuit has become myopic. It is getting tiring to read in case after case— where real innovation is involved—the Federal Circuit saying that they are constrained, even forced by either Alice or Mayo, to find the very real innovation to be declared patent ineligible. This madness has to stop! It is time for the judges of the Federal Circuit to stand up and fulfill their Constitutional Oaths. They must interpret Supreme Court precedent—all of it—consistent with the statute and the Constitution.

This marks the final installment in my four-part interview with IBM’s Vice President and Assistant General Counsel Mark Ringes and Chief Patent Counsel Manny Schecter. I found our conversation fascinating and want to thank them both again for their time and insight. Below, we conclude with an in-depth discussion on how the U.S. patent system is affecting startups and the state of enforceability following Director Iancu’s Section 101 Guidance.

This marks Part III of my four-part interview with IBM discussing the state of innovation and the U.S. patent system from the standpoint of a company that has obtained the most U.S. patents for 26 years in a row. Below, I continue the conversation with Mark Ringes, Vice President and Assistant General Counsel for IBM, and Manny Schecter, Chief Patent Counsel for IBM, picking up on the topics of prior art and patent trolls, moving on to a comparison of the U.S. patent system with the rapidly evolving systems of China and Europe and, finally, examining how companies are refining patent prosecution practices to address the Section 101 chaos.

In Part I of my recent interview with IBM, I spoke with Mark Ringes, IBM Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, and Manny Schecter, Chief Patent Counsel, about the company’s commitment to innovation and approach to patenting. Our conversation took place at the IBM offices on Madison Avenue in New York City and touched on topics ranging from Section 101 to startups to the USPTO. Below, the conversation continues with an in-depth discussion of Section 101 law, software patents, and how the Federal Circuit and Supreme Court have contributed to the situation in which we find ourselves today.

Judge Rich was attempting to articulate a test that would allow the decision maker to determine whether there is in fact an innovation; an invention that we recognize as one that can and should be patented if it is in fact novel and nonobvious. So, the key to the “useful, concrete and tangible result” test of State Street is the “concrete and tangible” part of the test. That part of the test must be referring to whether an invention has been articulated sufficiently so that if it is novel and nonobvious a patent could be appropriately awarded. This explanation of the State Street test would be in accord with both the Supreme Court’s decision in Bilski, as well as in Alice v. CLS Bank, as well as the Federal Circuit’s precedential decisions in which the Court discusses the need for an inventive concept under Alice/Mayo Step 2B, and particularly the Ancora Technologies, Inc. decision.

The European Patent Office Guidelines 2018 were recently published on the European Patent Office (EPO) website. All substantial changes in the new Guidelines relate mainly to sections discussing the First Hurdle, the EPO equivalent to patent eligibility. Although the First Hurdle can be overcome simply by adding the presence of a computer, the number, quality of and relationship between technical features are essential in dealing with the Second Hurdle, or inventive step. A thorough analysis of whether each claimed feature is technical, or not, is essential to claim drafting and prosecution of a computer-implemented invention at the European Patent Office and many also believe may help assessing eligibility and patentability before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Thus, U.S. patent practitioners working with Computer-implemented inventions (CII) would do well to review the new EPO 2018 Guidelines.

The Alice/Mayo framework does not mandate a conclusion, it tolerates – even enables – whatever conclusion the decision maker prefers. This is allowed because of a universe of irreconcilable opinions from the Supreme Court. So bad is the situation that you can’t hope to know the likely result unless you know which precedential opinions the decision maker will apply… The constellation of the problems that lead to the demise of the Freeman-Walter-Abele test are again present, this time it is a Supreme Court test that has led us into the morass. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court cannot be depended upon to come to their collective senses. The Justices actually believe their patent jurisprudence is consistent (which it isn’t) and they seem simply incapable of appreciating the havoc they have wrought.

Any good patent application that covers a software related invention will need to put forth three specific pieces of information. First, you need to describe the overall computer architecture of the system within which the software will exist. Second, you need to prepare a single flowchart that depicts the overall working of the software. Third, you need to prepare a series of flow charts that show with painstaking detail the various routines and subroutines that together connect to create and deliver the complete functionality of the computer system as enabled by the software. 

Much of the havoc wrought in the software patent system by the landmark decision Alice v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) stems from the unworkable two-part patent eligibility test based on vaguely defined and nebulous Abstract idea and significantly more constructs… In a patent eligibility landscape riddled with Alice-based rejections and invalidation it behooves patent practitioner and applicants alike to appreciate that not every innovation that achieves “a new, useful, and tangible result” is patentable… It is now more imperative than ever for practitioners to probe inventors with the right set of questions directed at identifying any distinctive technical features in the implementation, structure, configuration or arrangement of the software invention.

The idea that all software is obvious is a theoretical argument that doesn’t just border on the scattological, it wades right into the sewer. Consider artificial intelligence. If AI, which requires the use of software algorithms, is supposed to augment human intelligence and provide us with answers to questions we can’t figure out without the use of AI, how is that at all obvious? What about IBM’s Watson cognitive computing platform? … When the highest court in the land incorporates such backward-minded patterns of thought which allows them to say that “At its most basic, a computer is just a calculator capable of performing mental steps faster than a human could,” the U.S. patent system must be a relative paradise to Duda and other anti-patent Luddites who believe that software inventions cannot and should not be patentable at all.

This case and the passage above merely confirms what we have long known to be true. The magnitude of the innovation does not matter. Whether there is an innovation does not matter. Certain advances, certain innovations, are simply not patentable in America. No longer is “anything made by man under the sun” patent eligible.

Four years after the Alice decision, we seem to just now be detecting the full impact of the decision. The initial response by the USPTO resulted in an somewhat expected increase in the percentage of applications with eligibility rejections from business-method art units. Three years after Alice, eligibility rejections became much more common across the remaining computer-related technology centers (i.e. 2100, 2400, and 2600)… The sudden increase in eligibility rejections from other computer-related technology centers may have a number of causes. For example, case law from the Federal Circuit and the USTPO began to expanded the application of Alice to inventions that appear abstract despite not being directed to a traditional business-method concept… The increase in the percentage of office actions with eligibility rejections in TC 2100 was much higher than the increase in other computer related technology centers TC 2400 and TC 2600. Given that TC 2100 is a primarily software-focused technology center, this trend discrepancy suggests that post-Alice eligibility assessments performed by software examiners present increased challenges for patenting software based inventions.

The date of patent number 10,000,000 will be June 19, 2018. We feel this one is the easiest part of the prediction. We also think the USPTO will award Patent 10,000,000 to Application 13/666670 – SEARCH SPACE DESIGN FOR E-PDCCH IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION NETWORKS from Qualcomm Inc.

Interestingly, in the history of the entire CBM program, only three petitions have ended with final written decisions upholding all claims as valid. That’s 1 percent of all CBM petitions ultimately resulting in a final decision in favor of the patent owner… If Congress enacts legislation to mix the CBM program with IPRs and PGRs, which Rep. Issa seemed to contemplate during the hearing, then you just get the worst of both worlds: an environment in which any person could challenge any patent on the widest number of statutory grounds, and it all happens outside of the federal judiciary without a jury trial.