Part II:  See Part I #AliceStorm: July is Hot, Hot, Hot…and Versata is Not, Not, Not

What Is a “technological invention”?

The other part of the CBM definition at issue in Versata is the exclusion of a technological invention from the scope of CBM review. Correctly, the Court noted that the USPTO’s circular definition of technological invention as “essentially one having a “technological” feature that solves a “technical” problem using a “technical” solution,” “does not offer much help.”  But instead of defining what was technological, the Court looked to what PTAB said was not technological, that is “certain characteristics which, if present, did not help support a finding” that an invention was technological.  Here are PTAB’s exclusionary factors:

1) mere “recitation of known technologies”; 2) “reciting the use of known prior art technology”; and 3) “combining prior art structures to achieve the normal, expected, or predictable result of that combination.”

As a general rule you do not define a word by what it is not: the definition of mammal is not creatures that do not have scales, cold blood, and lay eggs.  Similarly, the use of exclusions does not effectively differentiate between technological inventions and non-technological inventions.
Continue Reading Versata: What’s “Technological” and the Federal Circuit’s New Rule Against Improvements

It's been one year since the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. On its face the opinion was relatively conservative, cautioning courts to "tread carefully" before invalidating patents, and emphasizing that the primary concern was to avoid preemption of "fundamental building blocks" of human ingenuity.  The Court specifically avoided any suggestion that software or business methods were presumptively invalid.  But those concerns seem to have gone unheeded.  The Court's attempt to sidestep the tricky problem of defining the boundary of an exception to patent eligibility—"we need not labor to delimit the precise contours of the "abstract ideas category in this case""—has turned into the very mechanism that is quickly "swallow[ing] all of patent law.” The federal courts, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the USPTO are using the very lack of a definition to liberally expand the contours of abstract ideas to cover everything from computer animation to database architecture to digital photograph management and even to safety systems for automobiles.

Let's look at the numbers to present an accurate picture of the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision. My analysis is a data-driven attempt to assess the implications of Alice one year out. It is with an understanding of how the Supreme Court’s decision is actually playing out in the theater of innovation that we can better project and position ourselves for what the future holds.

Alice at Court

Table 0 Fed Courts

As of June 19, 2015 there have been 106 Federal Circuit and district court decisions on § 101 grounds, with 76 decisions invalidating the patents at issue in whole or in part.  In terms of patents and claims, 65% of challenged patents have been found invalid, along with 76.2% of the challenged claims. 


Continue Reading The One Year Anniversary: The Aftermath of #AliceStorm

It's been six weeks since my last AliceStorm update, and we've had plenty of action: twelve §101 decisions, and fourteen patents invalidated in just that period. That said, the success rate of motions on the pleadings is dropping, now down to a mere 69.6%. At PTAB, ten new institution decisions, all of which were granted on ineligibility grounds. And PTAB continues with its 100% kill rate, with seven (!) final decisions invalidating patents.

Here's the data.

Total

Total Invalid

% Invalid

+/-

Fed. Cir and 
Dist. Ct. Decisions

90

63

70.0%

-3.9%

Patents

215

131

60.9%

-10.4%

Claims

4,497

3,282

73.0%

-7.3%

Motions on Pleading

46

32

69.6%

-7.6%

PTAB CBM Institution Decisions on 101

51

44

88.5%

1.52%

PTAB CBM Final
Decisions on 101

27

27

100%

 0%


Continue Reading Tracking #AliceStorm: Spring Showers Continue to Rain Patent Destruction

By: Robert R. Sachs

The Supreme Court has consistently cautioned that the judicial exceptions to patent eligibility need to be carefully applied:

At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. Mayo, 566 U. S., at ___. At some level, "all inventions . . . embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.”

Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2352 (2014) (citations omitted).

On November 14, 2014, exception did in fact swallow the rule in the Federal Circuit’s decision Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 2010-1544, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21633 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014) (“Ultramercial III”). Judge Lourie, writing for the panel of Judges O’Malley and Mayer, found Ultramercial’s patent claims ineligible. Along the way to that ending the court observed:

[W]e do not purport to state that all claims in all software-based patents will necessarily be directed to an abstract idea. Future cases may turn out differently.

2014 U.S. App. LEXIS, at *11.

This phrasing is precisely how one would state an exception to a rule. Instead of saying that software is generally not directed to abstract ideas, and that in some cases may be, this phrasing implies the opposite: software is presumed to be an abstract idea (hence ineligible) though there may be some case in the future in which it is not. This approach turns the entire patent eligibility framework on its head. This essay explores how Ultramercial III reaches this inversion and its potential consequences.


Continue Reading The Day the Exception Swallowed the Rule: Is Any Software Patent Eligible After Ultramercial III?

The Palo Alto Area Bar Association (PAABA) and the International Technology Law Association (ITechLaw) are teaming up to provide a luncheon panel discussion on the practical implications of the Alice v. CLS Bank decision. In her dissent to the Federal Circuit Alice decision, Judge Moore predicted that the majority view would result in “the death

By: Stuart P. Meyer

There has been significant commentary, both before and after the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice, that the various judicially created exceptions to patentability under 35 USC § 101 are not only sound, but are also constitutionally mandated.  For instance, a major thesis of the ACLU’s amicus brief in Alice was that the First Amendment naturally limits § 101, as “patents giving control over intellectual concepts and abstract knowledge or ideas—and thus limiting free thought—would violate the First Amendment.”

The Court may have already given some guidance in this area, and lower courts appear to be listening.  In a September 4 decision, one judge in the Central District of California had no difficulty dismissing, via FRCP 12(b)(6), an infringement complaint because the court found that the three patents-in-suit did not satisfy § 101, based on the judicially created exceptions as taught by AliceEclipse IP LLC v. McKinley Equipment Corp., Case No. SACV 14-742-GW (C.D. Cal. September 4, 2014).  Judge George Wu observed that Justice Kennedy in Bilski, delivering the opinion of the Court explained the limitations on  § 101.  The pertinent portion of Bilski reads:  “While these exceptions are not required by the statutory text, they are consistent with the notion that a patentable process must be ‘new and useful.’  And, in any case, these exceptions have defined the reach of the statute as a matter of statutory stare decisis going back 150 years.”


Continue Reading Are the Supreme Court’s exceptions to patentability mandated by the Constitution, or are they just “statutory stare decisis”?

The Alice Guidance lists four example categories of abstract ideas:

  • fundamental economic practices
  • methods of organizing human activities
  • an idea of itself (sic), and
  • mathematical relationships/formulas. 

Each of these examples has supporting footnotes to the Alice decision and other Supreme Court cases.  But it should be understood that these categories are for potential Abstract Ideas.  That is, something in one of these categories may or may not be an Abstract Idea. Taken superficially and out of context, some of these examples sweep too broadly, and will be too easily misused by examiners.  


Continue Reading The Alice Guidance Categories of Potential Abstract Ideas

By: Robert R. Sachs

On June 25, 2014, just six days after the Supreme Court decided Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the USPTO  issued its Preliminary Examination Instructions (“Guidance”) in view of the case.   Subsequently, the Office asked for public comments on the Guidance.   Over forty companies, associations, law firms and individuals submitted comments, including myself.  This series of posts is based on the comments I submitted to the Office.

In my view, the Guidance does not correctly interpret the Supreme Court’s decision, and does not provide specific guidance to the 7,000 examiners who will have to implement them on a daily basis.  The Court’s decision was not written as a manual for how examiners are to evaluate patent applications, and so simply quoting and paraphrasing the decision (along with scrupulous footnoting) is not sufficient to provide a cohesive, workable framework for the examination of patent applications, particularly for computer implemented inventions.  The core problem remains that examiners will be left to their own subjective evaluation and opinion of the patent eligibility of the claims before them.  Already, the patent community is observing very different approaches from different examiners.  This lack of uniformity leads to increased costs and delays in the examination of patents, as well as increased uncertainty by innovators as to the eligibility of their inventions in technologies that have been traditionally considered patent eligible.


Continue Reading Analysis of Preliminary Examination Instructions in View of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank.

By: Stuart P. Meyer

A recent episode of NPR’s “Planet Money” was entitled “The Case Against Patents.”  Several notable commentators in that episode questioned whether patents help or hinder innovation, whether history supports the benefits of a patent system, and whether patent terms should be tinkered with to determine the amount of protection that is optimal from various socio-economic perspectives.  I am delighted every time this issue is brought up, since the appropriate balance of rights between innovators and society is anything but static.  As reasonable royalty rates fluctuate under case law, as infringement and validity standards shift, and as patents become commodities traded outside of traditional M&A situations, the fulcrum is certain to shift in one direction or the other. 

The Supreme Court gave more than a little consideration to such issues in Alice v. CLS Bank.  In fact, the very focus of this unanimous opinion was on this balance:

We have described the concern that drives [the judicially-created exclusion for laws of nature, natural phenomena and abstract ideas] as one of pre-emption.  … Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are “‘”the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”’” (slip op. at 5-6)  


Continue Reading Where are You, Congress? Alice v. CLS Bank and “The Case Against Patents”