EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

01.28.18

In the United States, Software Patents Are Still Consistently Invalidated Under 35 U.S.C. § 101

Posted in America, Patents at 12:11 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

No entry sign

Summary: A look at some of the latest decisions, rants, and frustration expressed by the patent microcosm over the elimination of many software patents in the United States (US)

PATENT certainty matters. Consistency across judgments matters. Predictability matters. If all those software patents perish in courts, will their holders bother asserting anymore (i.e. suing)? The patent litigation numbers are already down and they go down every year. Ever since Alice we are seeing an encouraging pattern; the US Supreme Court objects to revisiting the matter and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) gets more hostile towards software patents each year. This shapes so-called ‘caselaw’ in a favourable fashion because software patents are ebbing away.

Most of the articles and tweets we find are rants about Alice and/or promotion of software patents, courtesy of people who never developed any software in their entire lifetime. It’s almost amusing to watch their agony; they try to attribute this loss to “software”, but in reality people who actually develop software are pleased to see the demise of software patents.

“Challenges to patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have become so routine in patent litigation,” says the patent microcosm, expressing the usual concern over Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v CLS Bank Int’l. To quote this new example:

Challenges to patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have become so routine in patent litigation that it is easy to overlook the opinions that seem to issue almost daily from the district courts and, less frequently, from the Federal Circuit. If one were to judge solely by the tenor of recent cert petitions filed with the Supreme Court, however, one would likely conclude that the lower courts are still fundamentally confused as to how to properly apply the Supreme Court’s two-step analysis for ineligible “abstract ideas” set forth in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). For example, an amicus brief in support of a cert petition in Recognicorp, LLC v. Nintendo, No. 17-645 (denied, Jan. 8, 2018) argues that, at least in the context of data processing patents, “[t]he lower courts and the PTO have misunderstood the Mayo-Alice test and have created indeterminate and overly restrictive patent eligibility doctrine under Section 101.” Other recent petitions in which cert was denied have taken the lower courts to task for either improperly looking beyond the claims to assess patent eligibility or, to the other extreme, looking only at the claims. This is not to mention the argument that eligibility is not a cognizable defense at all in patent litigation, an issue also denied certiorari by the Supreme Court last year.

That last sentence is correct. The US Supreme Court isn’t interested in throwing a lifeline to patent lawyers. The Justices at the US Supreme Court, at least as far as patents are concerned, have been doing the right thing. That cannot be said about all sorts of other domains (copyright law for example), but recently we have been feeling like we have an ‘ally’ in the highest US court. The Justices often rule unanimously against the maximalists. They overturn CAFC almost every time.

Looking at the reactions from self-described advocates of software patents, we still find words such as “kill” (war narrative); it’s almost as if, at least to these people, strict judges or examiners are murderers. How about this: “Cleveland Clinic’s Petition for Cert. Challenging 101/Mayo Kill of Cardiovascular Disease Detection Tests…”

It’s quite likely that this so-called ‘kill’ will actually help save lives by denying a monopoly on detection of heart problems. Here’s another one: “Search Engine Optimization Patents Held Patent Ineligible under 101/Alice…”

So another one bites the dust, as usual. We aren’t even skipping any of the decisions that are inconvenient to us! Alice and Mayo are having the intended effect.

It certainly sounds like Nike now uses a bogus software patent to taunt small rivals. To quote a report about a lawsuit filed last Saturday:

Sports brand Nike is being sued for patent infringement over an app that tracks users’ fitness.

US-based Personal Beasties Group (PDG) alleged that Nike infringes on US patent number 6,769,915, in a case filed at the US District Court for the Southern District of New York on Saturday, January 20.

The patent, known as the “Interactive system for personal life patterns”, covers an app developed by PDG that helps track the fitness goals and achievements of the user.

Just use 35 U.S.C. § 101. That might eliminate this patent altogether. Without looking at the pertinent details, it sounds like a software-only surveillance patent. Many such patents have already been invalidated; we can recall some.

There are obvious cases where § 101 is brought up inappropriately — cases where Alice and Mayo are simply inapplicable. But just because the § 101 challenge does not pass muster doesn’t necessarily mean it has been defeated; it may simply mean poor defense strategy. Consider this coverage of a district court case: (Free Stream Media Corp. v Alphonso Inc.)

In a recent decision from the U.S. District Court Northern District of California, involving Free Stream Media Corp. v. Alphonso Inc., claims of a television system patent survived a motion to dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

[...]

Samba relied heavily on Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), which supports the notion that a dividing line can be drawn between patents which merely describe using a computer and/or the internet to carry out pre-existing and well-known tasks and techniques, and those that relate to the functioning of computers themselves (e.g., specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities). The former will virtually always fail under Alice unless some “inventive concept” can be found in the second step of the analysis; the latter are substantially less easily characterized as merely abstract ideas.

So Alice was attempted unsuccessfully; the case can probably be appealed/brought to CAFC. Maybe try another legal strategy this time around. We were dumbfounded to see this other new case where § 101 did not work. It’s just hard to understand why § 101 was even invoked in this context (against patents on night vision):

The court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff’s night vision patents encompassed unpatentable subject matter because the asserted claims were not directed toward an abstract idea.

Seems to make sense.

Here, by contrast, is a new district court case (VOIT) which shows software patents crushed; they are hard to get and then also defend in US courts. Alice is cited:

Patent claims directed to “buying and selling an item relating to unique subjects” were held patent-ineligible under the Alice abstract idea test and 35 USC § 101 in VOIT Technologies, LLC v. Del-Ton, Inc., No. 5:17-CV-259-BO, (E.D. N.C. Jan. 10, 2018). The court therefore granted a motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6). Among the interesting aspects of this case are that U.S. Patent No. 6,226,412 includes a 330 word independent claim, and that claim includes a lot of technical terminology relating to storing and processing text and image data. Neither of these things saved the claim from Alice.

The ’412 patent is directed to “secure interactive communication of text and image information between a central server computer and one or more client computers located at remote sites for the purpose of storing and retrieving files describing unique products, services or individuals.” Claim 1, reproduced at the bottom of this post, recites numerous steps for achieving this secure interactive communication relating to unique products.

No matter how hard they try to defend software patents (or abstract patents), they almost always fail. Why would they even assure clients that such patents are worth pursuing in the first place? Or such lawsuits?

Charles Bieneman, like many in his profession, looks for new ways to bamboozle software developers with advocacy of post-Alice software patents. Here is what he wrote some days ago:

Perhaps the single most useful resource summarizing the law of patent-eligibility under the Alice abstract idea test is this chart of Federal Circuit cases under 35 U.S.C. § 101, found on the USPTO’s very helpful web page providing guidance on analyzing claims for patent-eligible subject matter. This blog has previously covered the USPTO’s guidance on patent-eligibility; I am discussing it again to note that the afore-mentioned chart of patent-eligibility case was updated on January 4. If you are responding to – and especially if you are appealing – a rejection under the Alice abstract idea test, this chart is the place to start.

[...]

A recent post on the PatentlyO blog, quoting a PTAB decision to the effect that the USPTO is not required to provide facts supporting patent-eligibility rejections, further drives home the reality. As the Federal Circuit has explained in many cases (see, e.g. OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, a 2015 case holding claims directed to price optimization patent-ineligible), patent-eligibility is a question of law. In practice, this means that it is like interpreting or construing claims – every adjudicator, from patent examiners up to the US Supreme Court, gets to look at it anew. Every adjudicator can apply his or her own gloss, a nightmare for patent applicants, patent owners, and potential infringers alike.

Watch how they resort to PTAB-bashing — a subject we shall cover later in the weekend. PTAB too is enforcing § 101, so even patent holders that sue nobody may see their already-granted patents invalidated.

Is the following good news? “PTAB Reversed Examiner on 101 Rejection of SAP Claims for Modeling Service Endpoints of Process Based on BPMN,” wrote a patent maximalist. So basically, this is not a granted patent, there is no lawsuit, and PTAB basically said OK to one single patent (for now, it can be squashed even in the lowest of patent courts later on).

A patent troll from Dominion Harbor responded with: “A good day, but a little sad that this is what we’re reduced to celebrating…”

It’s actually somewhat hilarious.

The maximalist then responded: “So true. I bit more good news with the PTAB reversing an examiner on 101 in an SAP application. This does not happen very often.”

In other words, PTAB very often rejects patents that examiners decided to accept.

In a sense, anyone can sense the frustration there. They really struggle to find any “good news” (for them).

Here comes § 103 to invalidate a Microsoft patent (well, application that nearly got granted). “PTAB Reversed Examiner on 101/Alice Rejection of Microsoft Patent Application but Affirmed Examiner on 103 Rejection,” he wrote.

Then came more PTAB bashing from a person connected to the above patent troll (Dominion Harbor). “Patent practitioners BEWARE,” he shouted, then taking note of someone who lost a rehearing at PTAB (on § 101). Here’s another rant (with ALL CAPS) about § 101 invalidations (“crazy rejections under §101 continue,” he later added). Here’s another ALL CAPS and a rant about PTAB invalidation. He said that “the definition of the “abstract” idea takes up almost a whole paragraph” as if the length of that somehow voids the decision.

The above are just some among many tweets that highlight the tough time trolls and law firms are having (they’re connected to each other). § 101 in particular drives them crazy. Then there’s also § 102, which was mentioned in another context 5 days ago.

Rule 130 declarations are the mechanism by which applicants can invoke many of the prior art exceptions embodied in the AIA version of 35 USC § 102(b)…

So we’ve seen how § 101, § 102 and § 103 generally raise the bar, if not at the patent office, then at PTAB or the courts. No wonder the number of lawsuits in the US has nosedived. In Texas it fell by more than half.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

What Else is New


  1. Berkheimer or No Berkheimer, Software Patents Remain Mostly Unenforceable in the United States and the Supreme Court is Fine With That

    35 U.S.C. § 101, which is based on cases like Alice and Mayo, offers the 'perfect storm' against software patents; it doesn't look like any of that will change any time soon (if ever)



  2. Ignoring and Bashing Courts: Is This the Future of Patent Offices in the West?

    Andrei Iancu, who is trying to water down 35 U.S.C. § 101 while Trump ‘waters down’ SCOTUS (which delivered Alice), isn’t alone; António Campinos, the new President of the EPO, is constantly promoting software patents (which European courts reject, citing the EPC) and even Australia’s litigation ‘industry’ is dissenting against Australian courts that stubbornly reject software patents



  3. Patent Maximalists Are Still Trying to Figure Out How to Stop PTAB or Prevent US Patent Quality From Ever Improving

    Improvements are being made to US patents because of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which amends/culls/pro-actively rejects (at application phases) bad patents; but the likes of Andrei Iancu cannot stand that because they're patent maximalists, who personally gain from an over-saturation of patents



  4. Links 15/11/2018: Zentyal 6.0, Deepin 15.8, Thunderbird Project Hiring

    Links for the day



  5. A Question of Debt: António Campinos, Lexology, Law Gazette, and Sam Gyimah

    Ineptitude in the media which dominates if not monopolises UPC coverage means that laws detrimental to everyone but patent lawyers are nowadays being pushed even by ministers (not just those whose clandestine vote is used/bought to steal democracy overnight)



  6. Science Minister Sam Gyimah and the EPO Are Eager to Attack Science by Bringing Patent Trolls to Europe/European Union and the United Kingdom

    Team UPC has managed to indoctrinate or hijack key positions, causing those whose job is to promote science to actually promote patent trolls and litigation (suppressing science rather than advancing it)



  7. USF Revisits EPO Abuses, Highlighting an Urgent Need for Action

    “Staff Representation Disciplinary Cases” — a message circulated at the end of last week — reveals the persistence of union-busting agenda and injustice at the EPO



  8. Links 14/11/2018: KDevelop 5.3, Omarine 5.3, Canonical Not for Sale

    Links for the day



  9. Second Day of EPOPIC: Yet More Promotion of Software Patents in Europe in Defiance of Courts, EPC, Parliament and Common Sense

    Using bogus interpretations of the EPC — ones that courts have repeatedly rejected — the EPO continues to grant bogus/fake/bunk patents on abstract ideas, then justifies that practice (when the audience comes from the litigation ‘industry’)



  10. Allegations That António Campinos 'Bought' His Presidency and is Still Paying for it

    Rumours persist that after Battistelli had rigged the election in favour of his compatriot nefarious things related to that were still visible



  11. WIPO Corruption and Coverup Mirror EPO Tactics

    Suppression of staff representatives and whistleblowers carries on at WIPO and the EPO; people who speak out about abuses are themselves being treated like abusers



  12. Links 13/11/2018: HPC Domination (Top 500 All GNU/Linux) and OpenStack News

    Links for the day



  13. The USPTO and EPO Pretend to Care About Patent Quality by Mingling With the Terms “Patent” and “Quality”

    The whole "patent quality" propaganda from EPO and USPTO management continues unabated; they strive to maintain the fiction that quality rather than money is their prime motivator



  14. Yannis Skulikaris Promotes Software Patents at EPOPIC, Defending the Questionable Practice Under António Campinos

    The reckless advocacy for abstract patents on mere algorithms from a new and less familiar face; the EPO is definitely eager to grant software patents and it explains to stakeholders how to do it



  15. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is Working for Patent Trolls and Patent Maximalists

    The patent trolls' propagandists are joining forces and pushing for a patent system that is hostile to science, technology, and innovation in general (so as to enable a bunch of aggressive law firms to tax everybody)



  16. Team UPC, Fronting for Patent Trolls From the US, is Calling Facts “Resistance”

    The tactics of Team UPC have gotten so tastelessly bad and its motivation so shallow (extortion in Europe) that one begins to wonder why these people are willing to tarnish everything that's left of their reputation



  17. The Federal Circuit Bar Association (FCBA) Will Spread the Berkheimer Lie While Legal Certainty Associated With Patents Remains Low and Few Lawsuits Filed

    New figures regarding patent litigation in the United States (number of lawsuits) show a decrease by about a tenth in just one year; there's still no sign of software patents making any kind of return/rebound in the United States, contrary to lies told by the litigation 'industry' (those who profit from frivolous lawsuits/threats)



  18. Links 12/11/2018: Linux 4.20 RC2, Denuvo DRM Defeated Again

    Links for the day



  19. Automation of Searches Will Not Solve the Legitimacy Problem Caused by Patents Lust

    The false belief that better searches and so-called 'AI' can miraculously assess patents will simply drive/motivate bad decisions and already steers bad management towards patent maximalism (presumption of examination/validation where none actually exists)



  20. The Federal Circuit and PTAB Are Not Slowing Down; Patent Maximalists Claim It's 'Harassment' to Question a Patent's Validity

    There’s no sign of stopping when it comes to harassment of judges and courts; those who make a living from patent threats and litigation do anything conceivable to stop the ‘bloodbath’ of US patents which were never supposed to have been granted in the first place



  21. Patent Maximalists Will Latch Onto Return Mail v US Postal Service in an Effort to Weaken or Limit Post-Grant Reviews of US Patents

    An upcoming case, dealing with what governments can and cannot do with/to patents (specifically the US government and US patents), interests the litigation 'industry' because it loathes reviews of low-quality and/or controversial patents (these reviews discourage litigation or stop lawsuits early on in the cycle)



  22. Guest Post: EPO Spins Censorship of Staff Representation

    Another concrete example of Campinos' cynical story-telling



  23. Andrei Iancu and Laura Peter Are Two Proponents of Patent Trolls at the Top of the USPTO

    Patent offices do not seem to care about the law, about the courts, about judges and so on; all they care about is money (and litigation costs) and that’s a very major problem



  24. The Patent 'Industry' Wants Incitations and Feuds, Not Innovation and Collaboration

    The litigation giants and their drones keep insisting that they're interested in helping scientists; but sooner or later the real (productive) industry learns to kick them to the curb and work together instead of suing



  25. EPO 'Outsourcing' Rumours

    The EPO advertises jobs in Prague and Lisbon; this leads to speculations less than a year after António Campinos sent EU-IPO jobs to India (for cost reduction)



  26. Links 11/11/2018: Bison 3.2.1 and FreeBSD 12.0 Beta 4

    Links for the day



  27. Pro-Litigation Front Groups Like CIPA and Team UPC Control the EPO, Which Shamelessly Grants Software Patents

    With buzzwords and hype like "insurtech", "fintech", "blockchains" and "AI" the EPO (and to some degree the USPTO as well) looks to allow a very wide range of software patents; the sole goal is to grant millions of low-quality patents, creating unnecessary litigation in Europe



  28. Latest Loophole: To Get Software Patents From the EPO One Can Just Claim That They're 'on a Car'

    The EPO has a new 'study' (accompanied by an extensive media/PR campaign) that paints software as "SDV" if it runs on a car, celebrating growth of such software patents



  29. The Huge Cost of Wrongly-Granted European Patents, Recklessly Granted by the European Patent Office (EPO)

    It took 4 years for many thousands of people to have just one patent of Monsanto/Bayer revoked; what does that say about the impact of erroneous patent awards?



  30. Links 10/11/2018: Mesa 18.3 RC2, ‘Linux on DeX’ Beta and Windows Breaking Itself Again

    Links for the day


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts