ILNews

Schantz: Software patents — the phoenix of patent subject matter

April 19, 2017
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Schantz-Matthew.jpg Schantz

By Matthew Schantz

Software patents have seen better times. The glory days of the 1980s and 1990s, after the U.S. Supreme Court held in Diamond v. Diehr (1981) that inventions implemented in software are not unpatentable just because they are implemented in software, continued long past the generalized expansion of patentable subject matter by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group (1998). But the Supreme Court shook the foundations of the software patent world in 2012 (Mayo v. Prometheus) and 2014 (Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International), leaving business leaders (and their patent attorneys) to wonder whether — or even hope that — software patents were dead. While the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and courts have struggled to find reasonable, “new normal” limits on software patents that are practical in application and justifiable under precedent, recent cases reflect a maturing of the law surrounding patents on software-implemented inventions.

Prometheus reasserted the historic prohibition on patents (merely) covering laws of nature, natural phenomena and abstract ideas. Alice applied this last limitation to invalidate a patent on software that implemented a hedging strategy for mitigating “settlement risk.” The initial response by the PTO was to bolster its processes and change its examiners’ attitudes to avoid allowing any patents — especially software-related patents — that either excluded all other use of, covered, described, mentioned, or bore any relation whatsoever to an abstract idea. As a thoughtful reader might appreciate, however, every single invention, whether made from sheet metal and screws or bits and bytes, can be described in many ways at a variety of levels of abstraction. A patent on a dump truck might literally focus its limitations on hydraulic connections and physical structures and movements, but these same limitations could be characterized as “merely” attempting to patent the abstract idea of hydraulic movement. PTO examiners took this latter approach in droves, rejecting and invalidating patent applications and patents with extreme prejudice. The examiner corps who review patents on some classifications of subject matter literally refused more than 97 percent of the patent applications before them.

At the same time, certain members of the technology community and certain organizations redoubled their efforts to prevent patenting of any software whatsoever on philosophical grounds. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and other free and open-source software (FOSS) advocates resist the application of normal patent policy to the software industry. The public also became increasingly aware of “patent insertion entities” who leverage the cost of defending a patent infringement suit to extract settlements from those who probably didn’t infringe the patents. The hue and cry of public sentiment did software-oriented inventors no favor as the PTO and courts worked to find a practical standard for reviewing software patent applications that gave due regard for recent precedent as well as patent policies enshrined in the Constitution and U.S. law since the founding of the Republic.

Over the last couple of years, cooler heads and thoughtful analysis have occasionally prevailed. The Federal Circuit held in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P. (December 2014) that a patent on systems for dynamically constructing web pages was patent-eligible subject matter. In March 2016, after a patent examiner rejected all of the claims in an application as directed to a nonstatutory “abstract idea,” the Patent Trial and Appeal Board reversed the examiner’s conclusion, explaining that “the claims are directed to a computer system and methods of using same, and not an abstract idea.” Ex parte Jacob A. Shipon. In May 2016, the Federal Circuit held in Enfish v. Microsoft that a self-referential database model is patentable. A few months later, in September 2016, the court held in McRO v. Bandai that a patent’s “ordered combination of claimed steps, using unconventional rules that relate sub-sequences of phonemes, timings, and morph weight sets, is not directed to an abstract idea and is therefore patent-eligible. …” The Enfish court wisely counseled that the initial stage of the two-stage Mayo/Alice subject matter inquiry should be meaningful, not “simply ask whether the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept, because essentially every routinely patent-eligible claim involving physical products and actions involves a law of nature and/or natural phenomenon …. Rather, the ‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims … based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’” In January 2017, the Federal Circuit declared in Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc. that a patent on a graphical user interface method presented patentable subject matter. Clearly, one might conclude, not every software-related invention presents unpatentable subject matter.

Unfortunately, not everyone agrees. Judge Haldane Mayer of the Federal Circuit wrote in a September 2016 concurring opinion that “claims directed to software implemented on a generic computer are categorically not eligible for patent,” apparently contradicting the Supreme Court’s holding in Diamond v. Diehr mentioned above. The Federal Circuit has held generation of device-dependent transformations and combining them into a device profile (Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 2014), an automatic pricing system (OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2015), real-time monitoring of electric power grids (Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, 2016), and classification/filtering of email (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., March 2017) to be patent ineligible.

While there are outliers, many opinions are starting to follow a pattern. Patents on inventions that improve the operation of industrial processes or computers themselves are typically upheld. Patents that just use computers to manage rights of persons are often doomed. The more that the “technical character” of an invention is the focus of the description and the claims, the better. If we are mindful of this pattern, inventors who contribute truly novel and nonobvious advances in the software space may continue to see their just reward.•

• Matthew Schantz is a member at Frost Brown Todd LLC. His practice includes patent, software, trademark, information security, automotive, and privacy law. The opinions expressed are those of the author.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He TIL team,please zap this comment too since it was merely marking a scammer and not reflecting on the story. Thanks, happy Monday, keep up the fine work.

  2. You just need my social security number sent to your Gmail account to process then loan, right? Beware scammers indeed.

  3. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  4. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  5. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

ADVERTISEMENT