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. Reader's Article: Affaire Benalla Strongly Connected to EPO/OEB/EPA and Former President Benoît Battistelli

    A Macron scandal has led French media to finally (and years too late) exploring some of the much more explosive scandals at the EPO, revealing some interesting new details in the process



  2. Language Patent Lawyers Are Using to Warp the Debate and Decrease Public Understanding of Patents

    The patent microcosm, trying to get the public all baffled/confused about the patent system, continues (mis)using words to convey things in misleading ways



  3. USPTO FEES ACT Makes the US Patent Office a Money-Making Machine That Systematically Disregards Patent Quality

    The lingering issues with patent assessment at the US patent office, which unlike US courts isn't quite so impartial an actor (it benefits more from granting than from rejecting)



  4. Guest Post on Ronan Le Gleut and Benalla at the French Senate (in Light of Battistelli's Epic Abuses)

    Thoughts on the possibility that Battistelli will belatedly be held accountable for his abuses, knowing that a senator representing French Citizens residing Abroad comes from the EPO



  5. A Lot of US Patents Are Entirely Bogus, But Apple Was Willing to Pay for Them

    Apple's resistance to Qualcomm's patent aggression was preceded by very heavy ("thermonuclear" by Steve Jobs' description/words) patent wars against Android and even legitimisation of clearly bogus software patents from Amazon



  6. 'Owning' Nature, Thanks to Patent Insanity and People Who Profit From That

    Questionable patents on things that always existed and are merely being explained or reassembled; those sorts of patents typically serve to merely discredit the patent system and courts too increasingly reject such patents (e.g. SCOTUS on Mayo Collaborative Services and Myriad Genetics, Inc.)



  7. Patents Stranger Than Fiction and 'Protection' From Fictional Things

    Fictional things are being treated like "inventions" and insurance companies now look to exploit fear of fictional things (man-made concepts), such as ownership of mere ideas or words



  8. Benoît Battistelli Refuses to Talk to the Media About Bringing Firearms to the EPO

    Benoît Battistelli's highly aggressive approach has attracted the attention of French media; Battistelli has reportedly refused to comment on that matter, knowing that he lacks a defense (same thing happened after he had hauled millions of EPO euros to his other employer)



  9. Patent Law Firms Have Become More Like Marketing Departments With an Aptitude for Buzzwords

    What we're observing, without much reluctance anymore, is that a lot of patent lawyers still push abstract software patents, desperately looking for new trendy terms or adjectives by which to make these seem non-abstract



  10. Interlude: The Need to Counter Misinformation From the Patent and Litigation 'Industry'

    24,500 posts reached; so we pause and reflect, seeing that many sites/blogs of patent maximalists gradually ebb away



  11. Advocacy of the Unitary Patent System Has Become Almost Identical to the 'Leave' (Brexit) Campaign

    The charades of Team UPC carry on in Kluwer Patent Blog — a blog which for a very long time served no purpose other than Unified Patent Court (UPC) advocacy



  12. Open Invention Network is Rendered Obsolete in the Wake of Alice and It's Not Even Useful in Combating Microsoft's Patent Trolls

    Changes at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and in US courts' outcomes may have already meant that patent trolls rather than software patents in general are a growing threat, including those that Microsoft is backing, funding and arming to put legal pressure on GNU/Linux (and compel people/companies to host GNU/Linux instances on Azure for patent 'protection' from these trolls)



  13. Bogus Patents Which Oughtn't Have Been Granted Make Products Deliberately Worse, Reducing Innovation and Worsening Customers' Experience

    How shallow patents — or patent applications that no patent office should be accepting — turn out to be at the core of multi-billion-dollar cases/lawsuits, with potentially a billion people impacted (their products made worse to work around such questionable patents)



  14. EPO is Like a Patent Litigation (Without Actual Trial) Office, Not a Patent Examination Office

    Examination of patent applications isn't taken seriously by an office whose entire existence was supposed to be about examination; bureaucracy at the top of this office has apparently decided that the sole goal is to create more demand (i.e. lawsuits) for the litigation 'industry'



  15. Philippe Cadre From the French National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) Wants to Join António Campinos

    Yet another example of INPI's creeping influence if not 'entryism' at the EPO and this time too patent quality isn't a priority



  16. Links 22/9/2018: Mesa 18.2.1, CLIP OS, GPL Settlement in Artifex/First National Title Insurance Company

    Links for the day



  17. Links 21/9/2018: Cockpit 178, Purism 'Dongle'

    Links for the day



  18. Criticism of Unitary Patent (UPC) Agreement Doomed the UPC and Patent Trolls' Plan -- Along With the Litigation Lobby -- for Unified 'Extortion Vector'

    The Unitary Patent or Unified Patent Court (UPC) was the trolls' weapon against potentially millions of European businesses; but those businesses have woken up to the fact that it was against their interests and European member states such as Spain and Poland now oppose it while Germany halts ratification



  19. It Wasn't Judges With Weapons in Their Office, It Was Benoît Battistelli Who Brought Firearms to the European Patent Office (EPO)

    The EPO scandals deepen in light of a very major scandal which has occupied the French media for a couple of months



  20. Links 20/9/2018: 2018 Linux Audio Miniconference and Blackboard's Openwashing

    Links for the day



  21. Links 19/9/2018: Chromebooks Get More DEBs, LLVM 7.0.0 Released

    Links for the day



  22. Links 18/9/2018: Qt 5.12 Alpha , MAAS 2.5.0 Beta, PostgreSQL CoC

    Links for the day



  23. Today's European Patent Office (EPO) Works for Large, Foreign Pharmaceutical Companies in Pursuit of Patents on Nature, Life, and Essential/Basic Drugs

    The never-ending insanity which is patents on DNA/genome/genetics and all sorts of basic things that are put together like a recipe in a restaurant; patents are no longer covering actual machinery that accomplishes unique tasks in complicated ways, typically assembled from scratch by humans; some supposed 'inventions' are merely born into existence by the natural splitting of organisms or conception (e.g. pregnancy)



  24. The EPO Has Quit Pretending That It Cares About Patent Quality, All It Cares About is Quantity of Lawsuits

    A new interview with Roberta Romano-Götsch, as well as the EPO's promotion of software patents alongside CIPA (Team UPC), is an indication that the EPO has ceased caring about quality and hardly even pretends to care anymore



  25. Qualcomm's Escalating Patent Wars Have Already Caused Massive Buybacks (Loss of Reserves) and Loss of Massive Clients

    Qualcomm's multi-continental patent battles are an effort to 'shock and awe' everyone into its protection racket; but the unintended effect seems to be a move further and further away from 'Qualcomm territories'



  26. Links 17/9/2018: Torvalds Takes a Break, SQLite 3.25.0 Released

    Links for the day



  27. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Helps Prevent Frivolous Software Patent Lawsuits

    PTAB with its quality-improving inter partes reviews (IPRs) is enraging patent maximalists; but by looking to work around it or weaken it they will simply reduce the confidence associated with US patents



  28. Abstract Patents (Things One Can Do With Pen and Paper, Sometimes an Abacus) Are a Waste of Money as Courts Disregard Them

    A quick roundup of patents and lawsuits at the heart of which there's little or no substance; 35 U.S.C. § 101 renders these moot



  29. “Blockchain” Hype and “FinTech”-Like Buzzwords Usher in Software Patents Everywhere, Even Where Such Patents Are Obviously Bunk

    Not only the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) embraces the "blockchain" hype; business methods and algorithms are being granted patent 'protection' (exclusivity) which would likely be disputed by the courts (if that ever reaches the courts)



  30. Qualcomm's Patent Aggression Threatens Rationality of Patent Scope in Europe and Elsewhere

    Qualcomm's dependence on patent taxes (so-called 'royalties' associated with physical devices which it doesn't even make) highlights the dangers now known; the patent thicket has grown too "thick"


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