Posts Tagged: "patent eligibility"

”A few years ago we ramped up our foreign filings and recognized that we’re writing this one document, this one patent application for so many different audiences. We started settling in on the European technical standard as a guide for how to draft, how to cover the innovation from that vantage point, in order to try to write this document that would satisfy the USPTO as well as the EPO, Chinese Patent Office, the Japanese Patent Office, and so on. So for me, what this environment means as a practitioner has more to do with how the patent is drafted and how we capture the innovation, and not really a huge difference about what the underlying innovation is or how it’s implemented.”

Sadly, this is not an isolated case. I’ve seen similar rejections in a diverse (and utterly random) number of art areas and technologies ranging from predictive computer algorithms, to voice recognition technology, to methods for user-customization of advertising received on a device. While some of the rejected claims were arguably directed to an abstract idea, only a small minority had any apparent connection to “organizing human activity” as that phrase has been used in the case law.

I will be criss-crossing the country again in March 2015, with stops in Washington, DC, Chicago, Michigan, and San Fransisco. What follows is my schedule for the month. If you are in the area come out to say hello.

I do feel that the whole notion of trying to find an “inventive concept” is really challenged. While the Supreme Court went out of its way to say we are really not putting Sections 102 or 103 in here, I think what’s happening is the Courts are basically trying to do that. And they’re looking deeply into prior art in some cases to knock out patents under Section 101 and whittle away the invention, and trying to find the abstract idea by doing a prior art analysis, and I think that’s troubling.

Whether Alice v. CLS is a ”good” decision depends on your perspective. Certainly, Alice could have said Diamond v. Diehr was overruled, it could have said that software was patent ineligible, it could have said that business methods were patent ineligible. So it could have been worse, that is absolutely true, but I don’t know that makes it a good decision.

It would be extremely unsettling if the Supreme Court has weakened Judge Lourie’s resolve to independently and properly interpret the Patent Act. If there is another explanation for his flip-flop on matters of patent eligibility I would love to hear it, but so far an explanation for diametrically different opinions has not been forthcoming. I don’t expect Judge Lourie to make a speech or hold a press conference like a politician, but if he is going to make diametrically opposite decisions in the same case, on the same facts, relating to the same claims, he owes litigants and the industry an explanation. Without an explanation it makes the entire process seem nothing more than arbitrary and capricious.

Based on the Supreme Court decision and the Patent Office guidelines it is clear to me that the Alice Supreme Court decision is a major victory for patenting computer-implemented (software) inventions. When the Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the critical issue is whether there is an inventive concept (and not on how an invention is implemented) the Supreme Court finally ended the debate on whether computer-implemented inventions are patentable.

Earlier today the United States Patent and Trademark Office released the promised patent eligible subject matter examples, which together with the recently released guidance will give applicants, patent prosecutors and patent examiners more information about how the USPTO interprets the state of the law in this all important area. The USPTO guidance with respect to biotechnology has been much further…

Drew Hirshfeld, Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, went over the highlights of the USPTO interim guidance, explaining “first, we were able to narrow the funnel that we use to determine which claims should be analyzed for subject matter eligibility.” In this regard Hirshfeld was discussing how the USPTO modified the proposed guidance, which was initially released for comment and the guidance that was release in December 2014. In the proposed guidance from March 2014, the USPTO would have had examiners apply the patent eligibility matrix if the claims “recited or involved” a judicial exception to patent eligibility. In the final guidance, Hirshfeld explained, that the USPTO opted for “directed to” language instead, which is narrower than the expansive “recited or involved” standard.

Truthfully, the Supreme Court decision in Alice can only be described as an intellectually bankrupt. The Supreme Court never once used the word “software” in its decision. The failure to mention software a single time is breathtaking given that the Supreme Court decision in Alice will render many hundreds of thousands of software patents completely useless. Ironically, at the end of the day, software patent claims written in typical, industry standard format will result in patent ineligible claims. Yet, at the same time, business methods are patentable. To call this bizarre and inconsistent doesn’t begin to scratch the surface.

Despite the improvements that could reopen the door for important patents in important fields, the Guidelines seem far from perfect. But how could they be, given that they seek to harmonize the mushy judicial activism underlying Section 101 in the first place? Few federal statutes have spawned “judicially crafted exceptions” to flat Congressional instructions like the one in Section 101: “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”

The USPTO guidance, which in large part is reminiscent of the KSR Guidelines put out by the Office in 2010, goes through cases one by one. The USPTO explains the facts, provides representative claims and then explains the holding in each case so that patent examiners can understand the teaching point of the case and how to apply the holding to similar situations moving forward. Perhaps most notable, at least on the first review, is that the USPTO incorporated the recent Federal Circuit decision in DDR Holdings, where the Federal Circuit (per Judge Chen) found that the software patent claims at issue in the case were patent eligible.