Bonum Certa Men Certa

Software Patents Are Very Weak in the United States



Undoing decades of profoundly misguided policy

Summary: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) continues along the same path -- an encouraging path wherein Section 101 is generally accepted, albeit not by the Director, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) typically approves/affirms Section 101 rejections; failing that, the courts do the job

THE Open Invention Network (OIN), which has just been described as a "patent protection group", is perhaps just that. It's protecting software patents from people like us. Our stance on OIN changed some years back because of Alice, which OIN fails to exploit and IBM actively fights against. IBM is still the most influential player in OIN and it's not interested in the end of software patents; quite the contrary in fact.

Here are Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols' views on the latest additions or the latest news from OIN, namely or notably Alibaba. He even uses propaganda terms like 'IP' -- a term which no doubt this publisher is happy to promote. To quote the opening paragraph:

The American and Chinese trade war is near to boiling. The American attempt to extradite Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou has failed; China might be behind the Marriott data breach; and China might've caused a massive internet disruption. But one perpetual sore point between the US and China -- intellectual property (IP) abuse -- is taking a step for the better. Alibaba and its affiliate Ant Financial are joining the Open Invention Network (OIN), the pro-open source and Linux patent-protection group.


This adoption of cross-licensing-type attitudes rather than abolishing software patents (i.e. not PTAB-like methods) or eliminating them one by one at PTAB isn't a good sign. Why not work towards elimination? It shouldn't be so hard anymore.

Janal Kalis keeps looking for the relatively rare cases where PTAB reverses a decision to grant or reverses a rejection; there's an effort to demonstrate a disparity and a sort of 'controversy', then alleging that the underlying assessment, usually based on Section 101, is problematic. Some days ago he found out that "PTAB [had] Reversed an Examiner's [Section] 101 Rejection of Claims for a Navigation System in a Patent Application Owned [sic] by Honeywell: https://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2018000027-11-27-2018-1 …"

So a monopoly got assigned as those above the examiner considered it valid based on Section 101. What would courts say? It's not likely to ever get that far.

It is rather pathetic that Anticipat, an overzealous opponent of PTAB (no longer so vocal either, so one wonders if it's a failed/failing business), now resorts to nitpicking -- namely selecting one of those relatively rare reversals of an examiner's decision -- to make it sound like an encouraging development which merits "hope" (for patent maximalists). These people generally understand that software patents and business method patents are a waste of time and money, especially in courts. To quote:

There has been much energy focused on the flawed nature of the current Alice/Mayo framework for evaluating patent-eligibility. Even the well-intentioned [sic] desires of USPTO director Andrei Iancu’s to move away from this framework has its limits.

In a recent decision, Ex Parte Pasupulati et al, the Board reversed an abstract idea rejection to a claim directed to integrating an API-based mechanism to a merchant’s website without the merchant having to understand the API or having to know how to code in a language specific to the API. The Board rebuffed the Examiner’s position for both steps.


So it's a similar situation to the above from Kalis, but it is rare. Ankur Parekh asked Kalis: "Do you have an intuitive sense of reversal and affirmance percentages for 101 at PTAB the last couple of months? Thanks."

"The latest post on Bilski blog reports that examiners have been affirmed in 92% of 101 appeals recently decided by the PTAB," Kalis responded. "I think the % of 101 reversals peaked last summer."

This means that only about 1 in 13 would be reversed. That's very low actually and we used to write about those things quite routinely early in the year and last year. Courts are even stricter than this, but not many cases get that far because it's expensive and thus financially risky. But what about lower courts? Welcome to the universe where a nontechnical jury sometimes gets to decide on technical matters. In the following recent example the jury ignored the technical PTAB (its ruling that a patent was invalid). Just like that they got to decide on a case with tens of millions of dollars on the line.

A Delaware jury finds Edwards Lifesciences infringed a transcatheter heart valve technology patent, which was ruled invalid by the PTAB earlier this year

A District of Delaware jury has awarded Boston Scientific $35 million against Edwards Lifesciences in a case involving multiple patents related to transcatheter heart valve technology.


The way things stand, however, abstract patents would rarely get past PTAB and result in any 'damages' payment.

Brittany Knight and Anthony Sabatelli wrote for Patent Docs a typical kind of article (for that site), insinuating that a law they do not like needs to "evolve" (i.e. get watered down). Patent maximalists, usually trolls and law firms, still moan about the demise of software patents because of 35 U.S.C. €§ 101; what they keep saying about Berkheimer is rather meaningless because it has not statistically changed much, especially when one takes into account decreased interest in litigation with software patents, seeing the lack of success in such cases.

Knight and Sabatelli start by explaining things as follows:

Software is a generic term to refer to a collection of data or executing code used by a computer to implement arithmetic operations or logical operations. Back in 1936, Allen Turing, in his landmark paper On Computable Numbers proposed the capable use of instructions (i.e., software) to execute functions through his Turing Machine, an early precursor of the general purpose computer[1]. Today the modern computer is instrumental for complex computations, data analytics, high-powered graphing, simulations, and so on. Although, the development and use of software for these computer functions has become mainstream, determining the patent eligibility of software inventions under 35 U.S.C. €§ 101 has been less intuitive.

In the wake of the now famous Mayo and Alice decisions, patent subject eligibility is determined through a 2-step inquiry. The first step asks whether, the patent claim is directed to a natural phenomenon, biological process, or abstract idea. Software is generally categorized as being "abstract" because it does not fulfill the more concrete criteria for being a "thing": i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Because software claims often fail the first step of the Mayo/Alice inquiry, the inquiry is next directed to the second part, which determines whether the patent claims add "significantly more" to bring them back within the fold of eligibility. However, meeting this second step has proven challenging in the court of law when it comes to determining patent eligibility of modern computational tools.


Back in the very old days (maybe a decade ago) we still wrote a lot of articles about why software patents are something that should never have been patentable in the first place because it's more like a rendition and hence it's suitably covered by copyright law, economically too (no need to undergo a registration process).

Staying on Patent Docs, Michael Borella also wrote about SAP America, Inc. v InvestPic, LLC. The moral of the story? Dare sue a rival with software patents and you'll end up having to compensate your rival for your false accusation and your fake patent (which is now invalid, too):

We wrote about this case six months ago, regarding InvestPic's appeal to the Federal Circuit over having its patent invalided under 35 U.S.C. €§ 101 in the Northern District of Texas. InvestPic did not get the outcome it was looking for. Here, the case is back in the District Court to consider SAP's motion for recovery of attorney's fees. As we will see, InvestPic ended up not only with its patent invalidated, but also owing a large chunk of money to SAP.

SAP was originally granted attorney's fees in 2017, after the District Court ruled, on the pleadings, that InvestPic's U.S. Patent No. 6,349,291 was invalid under €§ 101. As noted above, InvestPic appealed and lost.

[...]

This proceeding, however, was put on hold by the Federal Circuit appeal. Now back in the District Court, an order granting much of what SAP requested was issued on December 4, 2018.

SAP requested a total of $939,306.61, which did not include any time from attorneys and staff that worked less than 10 hours on the case. But this amount included time that SAP's attorney spent on a petition for covered business method review which was never filed. The District Court declined to award fees for the petition.

Also, the District Court found that the rates charged by SAP's attorneys ("$745.00 – $1,175.00 per hour for partners to $405.00 – $650.00 per hour for associates") were excessive. In particular, the majority of the partner's rates were above the 90th percentile for Texas, and the District Court found no evidence to justify the rates being so high. Accordingly, the District Court reduced all partner rates by 35% and all associate rates by 15%. Based on these adjustments, the total amount actually awarded was $679,420.46.

[...]

To further drive home this point, not even the federal courts have been able to crack the €§ 101 egg. It is well-known that multiple federal judges have commented on the record that Alice was hard to apply in practice. Judge Wu of the United States District Court for the Central District of California criticized Alice for setting forth an "I know it when I see it" test. Judge Pfaelzer, a colleague of Judge Wu, wrote that the Supreme Court's patent-eligibility cases "often confuse more than they clarify [and] appear to contradict each other on important issues." More recently, the Federal Circuit's Judge Plager, wrote that the post-Alice €§101 inquiry "renders it near impossible to know with any certainty whether the invention is or is not patent eligible." And these are just a few examples of judicial confusion. There are more.

Just a few months ago, the Federal Circuit ruled 2-1 that €§ 101 jurisprudence was too murky to be used as the basis of an attorney's fees award. While the facts between that case and this one differ, the law does not.


Looking at another site of software patents proponents, Charles Bieneman comes to grip with the fact that his profession, patent litigation, will become rather hard now that software patents are worthless in the US and typically drain plaintiffs' pockets. To quote:

Patent claims directed to establishing online chat sessions are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. €§101 and the Alice/Mayo test, said Federal Circuit Judge Bryson, sitting in the District of Delaware, in granting a defendant’s motion to dismiss. Epic IP LLC v. Backblaze, Inc., C.A. No. 1:18-141-WCB (D. Del. Nov. 21, 2018).


Remember when law firms advised people to paint algorithms as "GUI" to get software patents and other patents that are abstract? Well, forget it. That too doesn't work. Bieneman's blog colleague Peter Keros wrote about a patent on “remotely monitoring and controlling irrigation equipment”:

Patent claims directed to a remote user interface displaying a plurality graphical user interfaces (GUIs) were held not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. €§ 101 in Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Lindsay Corporation, No. 15-42-LPS (D. Del. Nov. 14, 2018). The Court found that the claims of U.S. Pat. No. 7,003,357 were directed to the abstract idea of “remotely monitoring and controlling irrigation equipment” without an inventive concept, granting a motion to dismiss under F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6).


Here's Bieneman on 35 U.S.C. €§ 112:

Claims in a patent directed to medical diagnostics were indefinite under 35 U.S.C. €§112(b) and Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosign Instruments, Inc. (S. Ct. 2014), said a court in granting summary judgment of invalidity. Lecat's Ventriloscope v. MT Tool and Manufacturing, No. 1-16-cv-05298 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 20, 2018).


Last but not least, Bieneman writes about 35 U.S.C. €§ 112 and "a patent examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. €§ 101 for lack of patent-eligibility". It's abundantly clear that software patents are very weak in US litigation (courts). To quote:

The Federal’s circuit has affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision in turn affirming a patent examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. €§ 101 for lack of patent-eligibility, and under 35 U.S.C. €§ 112 for lack of written description and indefiniteness, of a product-by-process claim directed to “a resource planning forecast product.” In re Downing, No. 2018-1795 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 7, 2018) (non-presidential).

[...]

Finally, and probably of absolutely no solace to the applicant, the court agreed that the recitation of “the end user” was not indefinite for lack of antecedent basis. Even though the term “the end user” was introduced “without an antecedent basis,” the claim only referenced one and user and it was clear who the end user would be. Therefore, the lack of antecedent basis for this term did not render the claim indefinite.


Even district courts, such as the Northern District of California's court in this particular case, learned to say "no" to abstract, bogus, fake patents or software patents. Bieneman's blog colleague Nathan Smith wrote about patent claims on "analyzing and automatically categorizing digital images":

The Northern District of California recently granted a motion to dismiss based on lack of patent-eligible subject matter, under 35 U.S.C. €§ 101 and the Alice/Mayo test, in claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,350,928, directed to “a system and method for the automatic analysis and categorization of images in an electronic imaging device.” Secure Cam, LLC v. Tend Insights, Inc., No. CV 18-02750-EJD (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2018). The claims of the ‘928 patent were ineligible because, like In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the claims were directed to the abstract idea of analyzing and automatically categorizing digital images. Further, like TLI, the claims include physical components, such as a digital camera, “but the physical components ‘merely provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea.’”


Last but not least, over at Watchtroll Robert Levy weighed in on licensing (fancier term for "paying for") bogus patents, i.e. patents that are not likely to withstand a challenge in a court, e.g. because of 35 U.S.C. €§ 101/Alice. Levy cites the Alphacap case (covered here at the time):

All too often, the prospective licensee/purported infringer usually doesn’t begin its efforts to acquire the patent(s) until after making disparaging statements about them during negotiations. As an example, consider the time line discussed in the case of Gust, Inc. v. Alphacap Ventures, LLC, No. 2017-2414 (Fed. Cir. September 28, 2018) in which Alphacap Ventures, the purported infringer, demanded re-assignment of the patent owner’s patents as part of a settlement offer, but only after arguing for the invalidity of such patents under 35 U.S.C. €§ 101.


Eventually a lot of cases come down to this. The underlying patents don't pass muster and are therefore not worth pursuing in the first place. In the coming days if not weeks we'll give some more examples like these. It has gotten a tad tiring/dull because the outcomes are mostly the same.

Recent Techrights' Posts

This New Determination on a Case Echoes the Modus Operandi of Microsoft's Serial Strangler vs Techrights (Its Online Decision/Judgment Says Truth and Public Interest Defend the Publisher)
Noel Anthony Clarke hopefully has enough money left to pay his victims, which include the publishers
 
Links 26/08/2025: DNS Tampering and TikTok Layoffs
Links for the day
Microsoft's Windows "Market Share" Overestimated
Microsoft's income sources are shrinking
We Shall See...
My wife and I are hardly the first victims of Brett Wilson LLP
Going Offline
There was life before the Net
The Register MS Has Apparently Shut Down Its Office
It is basically a fake address on the face of it
There Are Also Expectations of IBM Layoffs Very Soon With "Narrative Control."
Some of them mention Red Hat and how IBM failed to achieve anything substantial with that acquisition
After at Least Two Rounds of Mass Layoffs in August Microsoft Said to Have "September Layoff Confirmed - Performance Based"
Those "M5 level meetings" sound plausible
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Monday, August 25, 2025
IRC logs for Monday, August 25, 2025
Slopwatch: Slopfarms All Over Google News and Real News Sites Pushed Out of Visibility
Google News is dying (as a tool of value)
Gemini Links 25/08/2025: Numeric-only VM and Alhena 5.3.0
Links for the day
Links 25/08/2025: ‘Panama Playlists’ and Live Nation/Ticketmaster Suit Aims at Class Action
Links for the day
Gemini Links 25/08/2025: Empathy Towards Autistic People and Old Gadgets
Links for the day
Links 25/08/2025: Datacentres Versus Water Supplies and "The IPv6 Divide"
Links for the day
Links 25/08/2025: Data Breaches, Politics, and Financial Strain
Links for the day
GNU/Linux Distros Ought to Replace Firefox (and Firefox ESR) With Something Like LibreWolf
Perhaps it's come to replace Firefox
Father of Julian Assange Said the US Government Was Trying to Bankrupt WikiLeaks, Now the Assange Family Promotes Fake Currencies
Using the name for bad purposes?
Bailing Out GAFAM, Giving Taxpayers' Money to Failing Companies, and Trying to Outlaw Lawsuits Against Them
What would the late Lincoln have said?
Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) Inc. Lost 2 Million Dollars Last Year and Its Chief Took a Salary Increase of Almost $6,000
Another year or two like this... and the SFC will be bankrupt [...] Hallmark of mismanagement
The "New Techrights" Turns Two Very Soon
Accomplishing something each year is what's important, not merely "finishing" another year
Gulf Nations Leave Microsoft Behind
How much lower will Microsoft stoop in an effort to raise money from oil-rich lenders?
How to Combat IRC Trolls (in Our Experience)
Today I want to share my experience (or knowledge) of how to deal with IRC trolls
The Register MS Needs to Stop Participating in the "Hey Hi" (AI) Hype, But It Gets Paid to Participate in This Hype
the publisher (The Register MS) wants to have it both ways
Gemini Links 24/08/2025: Living With Your Parents, Zürich Zoo, and Macondo
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Sunday, August 24, 2025
IRC logs for Sunday, August 24, 2025
Gemini Links 24/08/2025: Signal on OpenBSD and Keyboard Layouts Compared
Links for the day
Men Who Abuse Women Should Never Spend Over 3 Years of the UK High Court's Time
This demonstrates that we need a reform in the UK
Links 24/08/2025: Microsoft Settles Data Breach Lawsuits and Climate Change Causes Heatwaves, Water Shortages
Links for the day
CachyOS is Rising Fast, But Slopfarms Are 'Googlebombing' It
CachyOS receives more media attention
No Reason for Red Hat Relief Yet (Layoff Rumours)
the execution could be stalled, delayed, or scheduled for some time after people come back from holiday
GNU/Linux 6%, Windows 60% in Venezuela, Suggests statCounter
The cash cows are dying
Mass Layoffs Continue at Microsoft This Month (Remaining Workers See Conditions That Deteriorate)
So far this month (one week remaining) we saw at least two waves of layoffs at Microsoft
How SPAM E-mails With Windows-Centric Files Get Twisted as Linux Threats, Then Slopfarms Spread the Word
Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt/Fear-mongering/Dramatisation
Links 24/08/2025: Heatwaves Threaten Workers, Maldives Versus Press freedom
Links for the day
Gemini Links 24/08/2025: Digital Cameras and Printers
Links for the day
Links 24/08/2025: GAFAM Lie About Pollution and Slop's Carbon Footprint, The Guardian Says Slop ("Hey Hi") is a Bubble That Will Send Stock Markets Into a Freefall
Links for the day
80% of the Sponsored (Fake) Articles in The Register MS Are Promotions of Ponzi Schemes (Unethical Money), the Rest is Banned Chinese Business
Is that an ethical way to make money? No.
The UEFI Restricted Boot 'Time Bomb' is About to Go Off in a Few Weeks
Garrett was the first person to face sanctions (like muting) in our IRC channels because of his abuse; worse yet, he hijacked other people's names and then locked them out of their own accounts
Should Currys PCWorld Start Voiding Warranties of Users of Vista 11?
If a person's laptop has a mechanical issue, should this person replace GNU/Linux with Vista 11 for the repair shop? Only to damage the SSD?
Newer is Not Always Better, and It's Possible That 'Peak' is the Past
People creating their own platforms means progress, whereas centralisation (like moving from blogs to social control media) is the opposite of progress
LLM Hype is Sowing Destruction: It Contributes to DDoS Attacks and Makes the Web Less Accessible (JavaScript "R U Human?" Tests)
If it was googlebot, it would be possible to argue that you'd at least then get referral traffic from Google Search. With LLMs, all you get is plagiarised.
Links 24/08/2025: New York Times Talks About Hey Hi (AI) Bubble
Links for the day
Gemini Links 24/08/2025: Upgrading Debian and Mobile-indifferent Design
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Saturday, August 23, 2025
IRC logs for Saturday, August 23, 2025