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”?

By: Robert R. Sachs

On January 31, 2014, Fenwick & West and the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property (CPIP) at George Mason University School of Law held a roundtable on Patentable Subject Matter at Fenwick’s Silicon Valley office. 

Our approach to this roundtable was different from the typical conference or roundtable on patent eligibility. As I have made clear in other posts, the question of patent eligibility reaches outside of the strict confines of the courtroom, the Patent Office and the patent statute; it is intimately grounded in science and philosophy, in the nature of human creativity and in the types of things that can be said to be the subject of human creation. In particular, the fundamental questions of patent eligibility—what is a law of nature, an abstract idea, or a natural phenomena—are questions that are ancient in origin, and that have been addressed in considerable detail outside the boundaries of the law.  

Accordingly, in addition to the usual suspects, such as law professors and patent practitioners, we included in our roundtable experts in a number of extra-judicial disciplines. Mark Turner, professor of Cognitive Science at Case Western Reserve University, is one of the leading theorists and researchers in studying the nature of human cognition, and one of the originators of the theory of Conceptual Blending, which describes how we combine abstractions from different domains to understand and imagine. Gregory Salmieri, visiting fellow in Philosophy at Boston University, provided insights on the historical and analytical issues underlying abstract ideas and laws of nature. Ted Brown, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, discussed the role of metaphor in scientific thinking, and how chemists and physicists think about laws of nature. Steve Rosenberg, Ph.D., Chief Scientific Officer at CardioDx, and an inventor on over 20 patents, brought his expertise in biochemistry and genetics to bear on these topics as well.

Our academic contingent included Adam Mossoff, Mark Schultz, Matthew Barblan, co-directors of CPIP; Kristin Osenga, professor of law at University of Richmond School of Law, with expertise in the role of linguistics in patent law; Christopher Holman, professor of law at University of Missouri-Kansas City, who has extensive experience in biochemistry and molecular biology; Andrew Chin, professor of law at the University of North Carolina, a specialist in the mathematical considerations under debate; and Saurabh Vishnubhakat, post-doctoral associate at Duke Law School and an expert advisor to the USPTO on patent policy. 

Our practitioners included myself, Courtney Brinckerhoff, partner at Foley & Lardner LLP, an expert in biotechnology patent issues and James Calkins, Vice President and Global Head of Patent Support at Sanofi (and former clerk to J. Giles Rich of the Federal Circuit), who explained the impact that the uncertainty in patent eligibility has on investments by companies in biotech innovations.

We will publish a white paper on the roundtable shortly. 

By: Robert R. Sachs

You are heading to Grandma’s house for yet another family gathering. Upon entering the front door, you are belted by a thunderclap of the smells of mothballs, yellowed plastic sofa covers, cat hair and foot powder. As you regain your bearings, the mellifluous under notes of Grandma’s apple pie reach you: tiny, moist, fragrant, individually encapsulated particles of Granny Smiths, butter and sugar, all borne upon the dry, hard air like foam upon breaking waves. You beeline to the kitchen, bypassing the hubbub of family, friends and distant cousins congregating in the living room.

Continue Reading Of Pies and Patent Eligibility: A Dialogue

By: Robert R. Sachs, Daniel R. Brownstone

Last week, we filed two amicus briefs with the Supreme Court in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, one on behalf of Advanced Biological Laboratories (ABL), and one for Ronald M. Benrey (Benrey). It goes without saying that this is the bellwether case for the patent eligibility of software. The question presented by the Court and the parties was whether claims to computer-implemented inventions—including claims to systems and machines, processes and items of manufacture—are directed to patent-eligible subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101 as interpreted by this Court.

Our two briefs focused on different aspects of the issue. The ABL brief set forth a new framework for patent eligibility called “objective preemption.” The core thesis is that patent eligibility is a question of law, but must be predicated on objective analysis based on POSITA, the person of ordinary skill in the art. This conforms the analysis to how obviousness is determined, a question of law based on the Graham factors, as well as claim construction, enablement, written description and doctrine of equivalents infringement. In all of these, POSITA is used to ground the analysis in objective factors, not the subjective beliefs of the Court based on what it had for breakfast. The brief explains how POSITA would be used to understand the scope of the claim, and whether the claim preempts all practical applications of some abstract idea. The brief concludes by showing that Alice’s claims, which were held invalid by the district court and the Federal Circuit, are valid under objective preemption.

The Benrey brief is more narrowly focused. Benrey is the author of Understanding Digital Computers (1964). This book was cited by the Solicitor General to the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson in support of the proposition that computers perform mental steps like humans. This became a core principle over the years and persists today; Judge Lourie of the Federal Circuit has repeatedly stated it as a fact and continues to use it to invalidate software patents. The problem is that Benrey never suggested that computers in fact operate like human minds.  Benrey’s brief explains that he was quoted out of context, that computers do not perform mental steps, and that mathematical formulas are not scientific truths per se as apparently believed by the Court. Benrey’s brief goes on to explain that the mental steps doctrine was extended to computers only on the basis of this misunderstanding of the nature of computers and mathematics. It further shows that the notion that general purpose computers cannot impart patent eligibility is scientifically unsound, based on the work of Alan Turing.

Copies of the briefs are available at the links below. We look forward to further discussion with those on all sides of the issue over the coming weeks, and ultimately, resolution regarding this question that remains critical to the future of innovation.

Oral argument is set for March 31, 2014.  We’ll be there.

Brief for Amicus Curiae Advanced Biological Laboratories, SA in Support of Petitioner

Brief for Amicus Curiae Ronald M. Benrey in Support of Neither Party

By: Robert R. Sachs

As many of you know, Alice Corp. filed for certiorari from the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in CLS Bank v. Alice Corp.  The deadline for amicus briefs in support of the petition is October 7, 2013. Trading Technologies will be filing an amicus brief in support, and is looking for additional companies to sign on to their brief. Their brief does not take a position on the merits, but argues that “several important and closely-watched decisions of the Federal Circuit have further confused the law in this area,” and that “market participants are faced with a legal landscape that is uncertain and unmanageable.”

If you are interested in supporting Trading Technologies’ brief, please contact Steve Borsand at steve.borsand@tradingtechnologies.com or Jay Knobloch at jay.knobloch@tradingtechnologies.com

Copies of their brief and their explanatory cover letter are linked below.

Trading Technologies Brief

Trading Technologies Cover Letter