I have this idea to use a computer as an escrow agent, can I patent it? – Not this week: Alice v. CLS Bank

by Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC
Contact

Your Quick Take Away

  • Did the Alice Corp patent survive? – No (few expected that it would)
  • Are software patents dead? – No
  • Can patent attorneys keep relying on “…performed by a computer” to overcome a §101 rejection? – No
  • Does this mean that business method inventions that use a computer are no longer patent eligible? – No, but the patent claim will need to carefully focus on how the specially programmed computer does its job in an inventive way (see below).
  • If patent attorneys write system and computer media claims do they avoid the Alice outcome? – No, the system and computer media claims were also invalidated for having added nothing of substance over the method claims.

Alice Corp v. CLS Bank

In Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, the Supreme Court unanimously held that Alice’s method, system and computer media claims were not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. This outcome was not unexpected; but it was by no means an easy case. One-year prior, the en banc Federal Circuit Court of Appeals had struggled with the claims in this case and could not reach consensus on what legal test should be applied. They left the case on the Supreme Court’s doorstep with a note, “please guide us.”

Here the Supreme Court sticks close to the script it wrote in the Mayo v. Prometheus, a case decided in 2012 involving the patent eligibility of a certain medical diagnostic process. Mayo erects a two step framework for assessing §101: (1) determine whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept (law of nature, natural phenomena or abstract idea); (2) assess the claims to determine if they recite an inventive concept that transforms the patent-ineligible concept into a patent-eligible invention.

Using the Mayo framework the Court first assesses Alice’s claims as drawn to an abstract idea: the “concept of intermediate settlement” that uses a third party or escrow agent to mitigate settlement risk. These are erudite words but the concept is grade school simple, if Freddie doesn’t trust Jonny to hand over his prize baseball, and Jonny doesn’t trust Freddie to hand over the cash in payment, simply ask Teacher to stand in as intermediary to receive both and make the swap.

For patent attorneys trying to extract some essence from this first step of the Mayo framework, pay careful attention to what the claimed invention was trying to do. In the Court’s words it was “a scheme for mitigating ‘settlement risk’.” By comparison, in Bilski v Kappos, the invention was use of hedging to minimize commodity-trading risk. In both cases the lifeblood flowing through the claimed invention was data representing risk.  You have to admit, mitigating risk sounds like an abstract idea, doesn’t it?

In applying the second step of the Mayo framework, the Court characterizes the use of a third-party intermediary as a “building block of human ingenuity.” These building blocks, the Court says, are ineligible for patent protection. Here, the use of an escrow agent is something we ingenious humans just instinctively know to do. In order to be eligible for patent protection, the Court says, the assembly of such building blocks must “integrate” into “something more.”

Assessing whether there was “something more,” the Court parses the claim in an interesting way that may rile the patent law purists who recoil at the thought of using novelty and obviousness concepts to assess patent eligibility. But so be it, the Court has spoken. First it looks at each element separately to determine if the recited computer function was other than conventional. In Alice’s case each computer step was deemed conventional. Then the Court looks at the claims as a whole to see if the “ordered combination” of computer steps were more than conventional. The Court concludes that Alice’s computer-implemented steps were nothing beyond what an generic, general purpose computer would do.

For patent attorneys trying to extract essence from this second step, it is revealing that the Court characterized the Alice claims as merely requiring a “generic computer implementation,” which was not sufficient to convert the escrow agent concept into a patent eligible invention. The Court’s analysis was quite logical. In Mayo the Court had held that reciting an abstract idea and adding the words “apply it” was not enough. In Bilski, the Court had held that limiting an abstract idea to a particular technological environment was not enough. Certainly it follows that “apply it with a computer” is not enough.

So what does it take to satisfy §101 under the Alice Court’s analysis? The Court seems to be looking for some additional feature in the claim that provides “practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea itself.” In case you haven’t already figured out, this means patent attorneys should quit trying to find those special magic words that when put into a claim will render it statutory under §101. There are no magic words.

How should patent applicants prosecute patents before the USPTO in the face of this Alice decision? The Court provides us with a hint. Supplying an example of what might satisfy §101, the Court offers essentially what the Solicitor General had expressed during oral argument. In the words of the Court:

“Viewed as a whole, these method claims simply recite the concept of intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer. They do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.”

Applicants now before the USPTO may want to take the above quote to heart and try to find some way to work these suggested improvements into their claims.

As for the fate of business method patents, Justices Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Breyer seemingly have had quite enough of that. Writing in the concurring opinion, Justice Sotomayor says, “I adhere to the view that any claim that merely describes a method of doing business does not qualify as a ‘process’ under §101.” The difficulty with that view is that one must begin using labels, and it may prove exceedingly difficult to agree on a definition of “business method” that fits outside the broad categories of §101, while leaving medical procedures and other such popular methods patent eligible.

 

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.

© Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC
Contact
more
less

Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC 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!