Fractured Federal Circuit Invites the Supreme Court To Once Again Weigh In On Patentable Subject Matter – What Computer Software Patent Applicants Should Do In The Interim

by Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC
Contact

On May 10, 2013, the Federal Circuit issued its en banc decision in CLS Bank International et al. v. Alice Corporation Pty, Ltd., (2011-1301).  At a high level, the issue in CLS Bank was whether software, business method, financial system, and some computer implemented inventions are eligible to even be considered for patent protection (i.e. whether they are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101).  The Supreme Court long ago ruled that patents are not available for “abstract ideas”—patents that would prevent others from using a fundamental concept in any application (a somewhat abstract idea in and of itself).  But establishing a predictable test for determining when a patent claims nothing more than an abstract idea has proven difficult.  In CLS Bank, the court issued several opinions proposing at least three different approaches, none of which garnering enough support to have precedential effect.  So while this case did not change the law, it has cast a bright light on a deep divide between the Federal Circuit judges on this issue.  The following is a brief discussion of the opinion followed by tips for what patent applicants can do in the interim until the law (hopefully) becomes more clear.

The CLS Bank decision ruled on the patent eligibility of method, computer-readable medium, and system claims for technology related to “the management of risk relating to specified, yet unknown, future events.”  The court summarized the invention as basically a computer-implemented escrow.  If you are feeling a sense of déjà vu, you are not alone.  Judges Rader and Moore noted that the claims were “indistinguishable” from the claims at issue in Bilski (a 2008 Supreme Court decision on this issue).

Judge Lourie’s opinion was joined by Judges Dyk, Prost, Reyna, and Wallach.  He proposed a three step, “integrated approach” for determining if a claim is an ineligible abstract idea.  First, verify the claim falls within one of the four statutory categories and then ask if the claim raises “abstractness concerns.”  Next, identify the “fundamental concept wrapped up in the claims.”  And finally, determine whether the claim adds a “product of human ingenuity” to the “fundamental concept” and not merely some trivial addition.  Judge Lourie assures us that this is not a separate “inventiveness” requirement.  Starting with the method claims, he boiled them down to the idea of using an escrow and found the other claim elements insignificant.  Turning to the device and system claims, he noted that “we must look past drafting formalities and let the true substance of the claim guide our analysis.”  For the system claims, despite reciting several structural components, and in some claims reciting a means plus function format that would be limited to the specific algorithms disclosed, Judge Lourie saw the structure as mere “drafting formalities” and found the recited systems “abstract.”

The remaining judges wrote five separate opinions over 90 pages, dolling out harsh criticism for Judge Lourie’s approach.  Judge Rader wrote an opinion joined by Judges Moore, Linn, and O’Malley.  Judge Rader urged a de-emphasis on the use of § 101, noting the broad and inclusive nature of the statute and that patentability determinations should be left to sections 102, 103, and 112.  He agreed there is an abstract idea exception but would significantly limit it, and noted that calling the system claims at issue in this case an “abstract concept . . . wrenches all meaning from those words.”  Judge Rader also listed several reasons why Judge Lourie’s approach runs afoul of basic tenants of patent law, including giving weight to each claim element, treating each claim separately, and not injecting additional “inventiveness” requirements into the law.

Judge Moore wrote separately to expressly state that “[i]f the reasoning of Judge Lourie’s opinion were adopted, it would decimate the electronics and software industries.”  And that “[t]here has never been a case which could do more damage to the patent system than this one.”  She asked the Supreme Court to grant certiorari, noting that the Federal Circuit “is irreconcilably fractured over these system claims.”  Judge Newman also wrote separately, and as one of the most experienced judges on the court, she reflected on the various failed attempts to develop a predictable test for the abstract idea exception.  She proposed the judges admit failure and return to the statute—if the invention fits within one of the four broad statutory categories, it should pass through the § 101 gate and be evaluated by the other statutory provisions.  Judge Rader also wrote separately to provide “additional reflections,” expressing concern that this uncertainty will damage development in important technology fields.

While CLS Bank provides more questions than answers, it might include some useful clues on what patent practitioners can do in the interim.  Under Judge Lourie’s approach, where he first considered the more conceptual method claims, and then moved on to the system claims, disregarding additional structural limitations.  An applicant trying to avoid this might consider pursuing more structural system claims in a first application, and then pursue method claims in a separate continuing application.  This could help prevent a court applying Judge Lourie’s test from viewing the method claims as merely reciting a “fundamental concept” and then glossing over claim elements in system claims that recite additional structure.  An applicant might also try to anticipate an application of Judge Lourie’s approach, guessing what a judge would consider the “abstract idea,” and then ensuring there is sufficient disclosure in the specification that provides a compelling story for the additional “inventiveness” added to that “abstract idea.”

Given the split in the Federal Circuit on such an important subject, we can most likely anticipate another Supreme Court decision on this issue relatively soon.  Until then, hope for the best (a bright line rule that minimizes the influence of § 101), and plan for the worst (each judge making their own determination of what the “basic idea” behind your invention is and then randomly deciding whether you’ve added enough additional, and sufficiently “inventive,” limitations to it).

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC
Contact
more
less

Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!