Patent Law Blog (Patently-O)

Bilski Briefs: Supporting the Government (In Name)

UPDATE: More briefs added Oct 5, 2009, 11:30 am

The final round of amicus briefs have been filed in the pending Supreme Court case of Bilski v. Kappos. Mr. Bilski is appealing the Federal Circuit's en banc rejection of his patent application. In that decision, the court held that Bilski's claimed method of hedging risk did not qualify as patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the method was neither tied to a particular machine nor transformative of any physical article. Bilski challenges this "machine-or-transformation" test as unduly narrow. Bilski's legal position was supported in a large set of amicus briefs including a strong textualist argument made by Professor John Duffy.

Briefs supporting the government position have been filed. As summarized below, the vast majority of briefs also reject the Federal Circuit's machine-or-transformation test as the sole test of patentable subject matter for a claimed process. In my summaries, I have attempted to capture what I learned from each brief, of course the briefs and arguments are much more extensive and nuanced than my squibs suggest.

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Kauffman Foundation: Business method patents are harmful and should not be allowed. The long history of US patentable subject matter indicate that a patentable process must provide a technological advance. Likewise the mere fact that a process uses a machine or computer does not immediately render the process patentable subject matter. Rather to be patentable, the advance must be a technological advance. EFF etc amicus brief.pdf.

Red Hat: Software methods do not become patentable simply because they are tied to a computer. Benson. Download 08-964bsacRedHatInc.

William Mitchell College of Law IP Institute: This case does not properly present the issue of patentability of claims that include a mix of statutory and non-statutory subject matter. The court should wait for an appropriate case to decide that issue. Parsing Section 101 provides few real answers as to patentable subject matter. Download 08-964 William Mitchell College of Law Intellectual Property Institute.

SFLC (Moglen and Ravicher): Standing alone, software is not patentable. This result is derived from the Supreme Court's decision in Microsoft v. AT&T that “[a]bstract software code [uninstalled in a machine] is an idea without physical embodiment.” 550 U.S. 437, 449 (2007). Download 08-964 Software Freedom Law Center.

SIIA: The patent eligibility of software is well established and should not be disturbed. Download 08-964 Software & Information Industry Association.

Knowledge Ecology Int'l: The goal of the system is to encourage progress, not to reward inventors. Further, patent protection is not a "necessary policy intervention to reward successful investment in new medical technologies. . . . [M]any of the greatest medical advances have benefited significantly, and in some cases exclusively, from mechanisms that exist completely outside of the patent system." Download 08-964 Knowledge Ecology International.

Mark Landesmann: The evidence of the negative social impact of business method and software patenting is properly directed at the PTO's allowance of patents that were not substantially novel and that were not properly disclosed or claimed. There is no evidence that patents on novel, non-obvious and properly disclosed business-method process inventions create any harm. Download 08-964 Mark Landesmann.

Nevada State Bar Ass'n: The machine-or-transformation test harms emerging Nevada businesses - especially in the growing areas of solar energy, gaming, and digital communications. Download 08-964bsacintellectualpropertysectionnevadastatebar.

American Bar Ass'n: The court should use an incremental approach to excluding claims to subject matter where patenting does not make sense and creates a problem. Categorical limits such as the machine-or-transformation test may limit innovation. That said, the "[p]atent law should not interfere with the exercise of human intellect by granting a monopoly on processes in which thinking is central." A specific target of the ABA is to eliminate patents covering tax planning methods. Download 08-964 American Bar Association.

American Insurance Ass'n: Regardless of their novelty, insurance policies should not be the subject of patent protection - even when combined with a computer. Download 08-964 American Insurance Association.

Bank of America, Google, et al.: The patent laws should bar patentability of "accounting methods, tax mitigation techniques, financial instruments, and other means of organizing human behavior—or software used to implement those methods." Download 08-964 Bank of America et al..

Bloomberg: Limiting a method to use on a general purpose computer should not render the method patentable. Download 08-964 Bloomberg.

CCIA: It is important that the Federal Circuit eliminated the overbroad State Street test. The current tension in the patent system can largely be traced to that unprecedented over-expansion of the system. Tight limits on patentable subject matter are important because (inter alia) of the strict liability nature of patent infringement. "Tying patentability to physical subject matter is not a perfect solution. However, it limits the reach of patents in important ways that can significantly reduce the risks of inadvertent infringement and the scope of potential liability."Download 08-964 Computer & Communications Industry Association.

FFII: Patents on business methods have been considered and were rejected by the Statute of Monopolies in 1623. Patents greatly harm the Free & Open Source Software (FOSS) movement. Download 08-964 Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure.

Professors Menell and Meurer: The Constitution creates a real limit on patentable subject matter - i.e., the subject matter of the patent must be within the "useful Arts." Economic evidence indicates that business method patents (especially internet related business methods) are harmful. 08-964 bsac Menell.pdf.

Law Professors and the AARP (Including Josh Sarnoff): Patents should only cover "inventions in the application." Patents can not cover "non-inventive applications of public domain science, nature, and ideas." The right interpretation of the statute requires that the invention "reside in the application, rather than in a discovery preceding or employed by it. This is because the science, nature, or ideas must be treated as if they are already in the prior art, i.e., are publicly known and free for all to use. Absent invention in applying such discoveries, there is simply no invention to patent." 08-964 bsac Brief of Eleven Law Professors and AARP.pdf.

Microsoft, Philips, and Symantec: Nobody (except Bilski) believes that his claims deserve patent rights. The machine-or-transformation test should not be seen as the exclusive test of patentable subject matter of a process claim - in part because the test has already "proven overly difficult to implement in practice." Like Professor Hollaar, Microsoft would simplify the test by requiring that the invention "involve one or more disclosed physical things." Today's computers - although complex - are not fundamentally different from Babbage's 1836 mechanical computer. Process claims that use computers should be patentable. Am Brief.pdf.

Professor Hollaar and the IEEE: Just restating the general principles of patentable subject matter is unhelpful. Rather, clear rules are needed - especially because the subject matter question is most frequently addressed by patent examiners who have little legal training and little time to ponder abstractions. A clear and time-tested rule would be: A process is patentable subject matter when it involves making or using a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. This means that software method patents that require a computer would be patentable, but Bilski's method of hedging would not be patentable. bilski-sc-amicus.pdf.

American Medical Association: The machine-or-transformation test should not supplant the requirement that a patent claim "address a technology." A patent should not be allowed to cover "every possible application of a scientific observation." Rather, claims should be limited to "a particular new and useful application or use of the observation. The Supreme Court should use this case to make a statement especially directed to "overreaching claims in the life sciences. . . . Such patents chill research, and patents such as those in Labcorp and Prometheus chill talking and thinking of ideas by making talking and thinking into a tort." 08-964 bsac The American Medical Association.pdf.

Adamas Pharma and Tethys: Section 101 should be interpreted in a way that is objective, predictable, and not duplicative of the other patentability requirements. The machine-or-transformation (MoT) test does not meet any of these requirements. The Federal Circuit test also violates US treaty obligations under TRIPS and NAFTA and potentially subject the US to trade disputes adjudicated at the World Trade Organization (WTO). Under these US-initiated treaties member countries agreed to offer patent rights "in all fields of technologies." A major purpose of the agreements was to ensure that countries offered a full scope of patent rights, and by limiting the scope of rights, the US "will no longer be able to credibly argue in Special 301 trade disputes that failure to protect healthcare inventions made by cutting-edge U.S. companies constitutes inadequate protection of intellectual property rights." Some Congressional intent can be gleaned from the legislative history of Section 287(c) of the patent act. As originally proposed, that provision would have limited the subject matter eligibility of medical and diagnostic methods. After some debate, a compromise was reached to continue to allow their patenting, but to limit the remedies available. 08-964 bsac Adamas Pharmaceuticals.pdf.

Robert Sachs and Daniel Brownstone: Software should be patentable and has been for a long time. The Federal Circuit test greatly confuses the issue. Although software is an abstraction from the physical world, it is not "abstract." SF-5270929-v1-Bilski_v_Doll_Amicus_Brief_of_R_Sachs_and_D_Brownstone_as_amici_curiae_2009-08-06.PDF.

Big Internet Retailers, including Crutchfield, Overstock, and LL Bean: Patent Trolls are hurting online retailers and one way to stop them is to eliminate business method patents (including software business method patents). In effect, business method patents amount to a tax on Internet commerce. (The companies don't mention - unlike offline retailers - internet companies are often exempt from paying sales tax...) Internet Retailer Amicus Brief.pdf.

Brief of CASRIP (U. Washington): The US Constitution sets a bound on the scope of patentable subject matter - limiting them to the Constitutionally proscribed "useful Arts" as that term was understood at ratification. For new methods, one key is to consider the purpose of the method. Methods of entertaining a cat using a laser and telling a joke into a microphone should not be patentable regardless of their tie to particular machines because neither of those functions have ever "been considered a useful Art, and surely . . . is not the kind of discovery that the Patent Clause contemplates." Some methods also exist that should be patentable even though they fail the machine-or-transformation test. Despite its problems, the machine-or-transformation test is "superior to its competitors in filtering out preemptive claims to basic principles." However, it should not be the sole test of eligibility. Bilski's claim is unpatentable because hedging against price inflation (the purpose of the method) is not within the useful Arts. CASRIP am cur brf.pdf.

Interim Guidelines on Examining Statutory Subject Matter

The USPTO has issued a set of interim examination guidelines for determining whether a claim is properly directed to patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. � 101, relevant Supreme Court precedent, and Bilski. The instructions begin with a realization that the area is in flux and that more permanent guidelines will be established once the Supreme Court rules on Bilski v. Kappos. In addition, these are guidelines rather than rules or laws. Thus, an examiner's failure to follow the guidelines is "neither appealable nor petitionable."

Download 101 Memo to Directors | Download 101 Examiner Instructions 8 24 09 | Download FLOWCHARTMORT 8 24 09 | Download FLOWCHARTPROD 8 24 09

The guidelines appear to do a good job of synthesizing the highly confusing area of law into a straightforward algorithm. The problem is that next spring the Supreme Court is almost sure to reject the Federal Circuit's Machine-or-Transformation test. At that point, all of the examiner time and applicant money focusing on this "threshold issue" will have been wasted. I understand that the business of the PTO must continue even in the face of potential policy shifts. However, I would have suggested that examination of Section 101 eligibility be put on a back-burner - especially in light of the fact that most questionable subject matter cases will also fail the tests of obviousness, enablement, and indefiniteness.

The guidelines bear the signature of Drew Hirshfeld, Acting Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy. The PTO recently posted a notice looking to permanently fill this extremely important position.

Bilski v. Doll: Reconsidering Patentable Subject Matter

Bilski v. Doll (Supreme Court 2009)

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in an important case challenging the scope of patentable subject matter. [Order]

Questions Presented:

Whether the Federal Circuit erred by holding that a “process” must be tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or transform a particular article into a different state or thing (“machine-or-transformation” test), to be eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101, despite this Court’s precedent declining to limit the broad statutory grant of patent eligibility for “any” new and useful process beyond excluding patents for “laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.”

Whether the Federal Circuit’s “machine-or-transformation” test for patent eligibility, which effectively forecloses meaningful patent protection to many business methods, contradicts the clear Congressional intent that patents protect “method[s] of doing or conducting business.” 35 U.S.C. § 273.

Prior Coverage of the Case:

• Supreme Court Docket
• Mar 5, 2009: Bilski v. Doll: Round I of Amicus Briefs  
• Mar 1, 2009: Patentable Subject Matter Redux: Bilski 2009
• Jan 30, 2009: BPAI Again Rejects System Claims under Bilski  
• Jan 28, 2009: Bilski Petitions Supreme Court to Decide Issues of Patentable Subject Matter
• Jan 27, 2009: Should Patent Attorneys Support Bilski?
• Nov 18, 2008: Software Method Claims: Bilski in light of Benson  
• Nov 13, 2008: Post-Bilski BPAI Approves of Beauregard Claims
• Nov 10, 2008: Applying Bilski to Metabolite’s Diagnosis Claim   
• Nov 4, 2008: Holman: Applying Bilski to Biotechnology and the Life Sciences
• Nov 2, 2008: Collins: In re Bilski: Tangibility Gone “Meta”
• Oct 30, 2008: In re Bilski: Patentable Process Must Either (1) be Tied to a particular machine or (2) Transform a Particular Article
• May 8, 2008: CAFC Hears En Banc Bilski Case (oral arguments)
• Apr 10, 2008: Ex Parte Bilski: On the Briefs
• Mar 28, 2008: Ex Parte Bilski: Once Again Rethinking the Scope of Patentable Subject Matter   
• Feb 15, 2008: Bilski: Full CAFC to Reexamine the Scope of Subject Matter Patentability

Documents:

• Supreme Court: Bilski Petition for Certiorari
• Supreme Court: Government Opposition to Certiorari, Bilski Government Opposition to Certiorari
• Supreme Court: Bilski Reply in Support of Certiorari, Bilski.reply.pdf
• Supreme Court: Nine Amicus Briefs In Support of Certiorari.
• Federal Circuit: En Banc Decision: 07-1130.pdf
• Federal Circuit: Dozens of Amicus Briefs
• PTO Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences Bilski Decision: BPAI.Bilski.pdf

Amicus Support:

• According to the Supreme Court rule, the petitioner (here Bilski) now has 45 days to file its opening brief on the merits. The respondent's brief is ordinarily due within thirty days of that date. Any amicus brief would be due 7 days after the filing of the brief for the party being supported. This pushes the deadline for the first round of amicus briefs to the week of July 20.

In re Ferguson: Patentable Subject Matter

In re Ferguson (Fed. Cir. 2009)

Scott Harris has been discussed several times on Patently-O. Harris is a former Fish & Richardson partner. Fish handles the most patent litigation of any firm in the country. In addition to being a patent attorney, Harris is an inventor. He has contracted with the plaintiffs firm Niro Scavone in several actions to enforce patents against Google and other companies. Harris is one of the named inventors of the Ferguson application and he handled the [futile] appeal.

The claimed invention focuses on a "method of marketing a product" and a "paradigm for marketing software." These claims focus on methods and structures for operating a business.

Methods Under Bilski: Claim 1 reads as follows:

A method of marketing a product, comprising:

developing a shared marketing force, said shared marketing force including at least marketing channels, which enable marketing a number of related products;

using said shared marketing force to market a plurality of different products that are made by a plurality of different autonomous producing company, so that different autonomous companies, having different ownerships, respectively produce said related products;

obtaining a share of total profits from each of said plurality of different autonomous producing companies in return for said using; and

obtaining an exclusive right to market each of said plurality of products in return for said using.

Under Bilski, this case is open and shut. The claim is not even arguably tied to a machine -- especially under the Nuijten construction of machine to be a "concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices [including] every mechanical device or combination of mechanical powers and devices to perform some function and produce a certain effect or result." (Quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 531, 570 (1863)). Thus, the 1863 touchability definition of machine appears to hold weight. On the second Bilski prong, the claim does not require transformation of any article into a different state or thing. The only transformation is that of legal rights and organizational relationships that were explicitly excluded in the Bilski decision: "transformations or manipulations simply of public or private legal obligations or relationships, business risks, or other such abstractions cannot meet the test because they are not physical objects or substances, and they are not representative of physical objects or substances.”

Harris asked the court to consider a different test of patentable subject matter: “Does the claimed subject matter require that the product or process has more than a scintilla of interaction with the real world in a specific way?” The CAFC panel rejected that proposal primarily based on the precedential value of Bilski: "In light of this court’s clear statements that the “sole,” “definitive,” “applicable,” “governing,” and “proper” test for a process claim under § 101 is the Supreme Court’s machine-or-transformation test, see Bilski, passim, we are reluctant to consider Applicants’ proposed test." The court went on to determine that the "scintilla" test would create too much ambiguity as well.

Non Method Claims: The application also included claims directed to a "paradigm for marketing software" made up of a marketing company that markets software in return for a contingent share of income. Although "instructive," the Federal Circuit did not directly follow Bilski. Rather, the court looked to determine whether the claimed paradigm fit within one of the four statutory classes listed in Section 101:

Inventions Patentable: "... any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof..."

In a gentle Koan, the Court stated that it "need not resolve the particular class of statutory subject matter into which Applicants' paradigm claims fall, [however], the claims must satisfy at least one category." In fact, the court did attempt to resolve the particular class, but was unable to fit the paradigm claim into any of the four.

Applicants’ paradigm claims are not directed to processes, as “no act or series of acts” is required. Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1355. Applicants do not argue otherwise. Applicants’ marketing company paradigm is also not a manufacture, because although a marketing company may own or produce tangible articles or commodities, it clearly cannot itself be an “‘article[]’ resulting from the process of manufacture.” Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356. Again, Applicants do not argue otherwise. And Applicants’ marketing company paradigm is certainly not a composition of matter. Applicants do not argue otherwise.  

Again applying the touchability notion of machine, the Court also rejected the notion that the company paradigm could be a machine:

Applicants do assert, however, that “[a] company is a physical thing, and as such analogous to a machine.” But the paradigm claims do not recite “a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices,” Nuijtent, and as Applicants conceded during oral argument, “you cannot touch the company.”

Ending in a flourish, the court found that in fact, the Ferguson paradigm claims are "drawn quite literally to the paradigmatic abstract idea." (quoting Warmerdam).

Judge Newman offers a poignant concurring opinion.  

Bilski v. Doll: Round I of Amicus Briefs

Bilski v. Doll (on petition for writ of certiorari 2009)

In a 2008 en banc decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Office ruling that Bernard Bilski’s claimed method of hedging the risk of bad weather through commodities trading was not patent eligible under Section 101 of the patent act. The Court applied a “machine-or-transformation test” as the only test to be used in determining whether a claimed process is eligible for patenting under § 101. The decision holds that a claimed process either (1) be tied to a particular machine or apparatus or (2) transform a particular article into a different state or thing. Although the Court identified the Bilski test as the only test, it added two corollaries: (1) the addition of a mere field-of-use limitation without other meaningful limits on claim scope will not render a method claim patent eligible; and (2) insignificant extra-solution limitations will not render a method claim patent eligible.

Bilski has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear its appeal and look at the question of patentable subject matter for the first time in a generation. Diamond v. Chakrabarty and Diamond v. Diehr together opened the door for broader patent eligible subject matter. Notably, Justice Stevens – author of the Diehr dissent – is the only justice still on the bench. Bilski’s petition asks two questions:

1.       Whether the Federal Circuit erred by holding that a “process” must be tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or transform a particular article into a different state or thing … despite this Court’s precedent declining to limit the broad statutory grant of patent eligibility for “any” new and useful process beyond excluding patents for “laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.”

2.       Whether the Federal Circuit’s “machine-or-transformation” test for patent eligibility, which effectively forecloses meaningful patent protection to many business methods, contradicts the clear Congressional intent that patents protect “method[s] of doing or conducting business.” 35 U.S.C. § 273.

The first round of Amicus briefs – those supporting the petition – have now been filed. The PTO’s briefs and briefs in opposition to the petition are due in early April.

Amicus Briefs Supporting the Petition (I have not reviewed all of these, but wanted to post them for public consumption):

• AIPLA: “There is no support in this Court’s precedent for the Federal Circuit majority’s conclusion that this Court enunciated a definitive ‘machine or transformation’ test for determining the patent eligibility of a claimed process under § 101.” The statute should be interpreted to promote new areas of technology.   File Attachment: aiplaamicus.pdf (148 KB)

• Boston IPLA: The “machine-or-transformation test” conflicts with Supreme Court precedent. File Attachment: bostonamicus.pdf (142 KB)

• Borland Software: File Attachment: borlandamicus.pdf (158 KB)

• Koninklijke Philips Electronics: File Attachment: philipsamicus.pdf (162 KB)

• Anne Barschall: The Supreme Court appears to have some “prejudice against electronic devices [as evidenced by] both Benson and Morse.” Its not magic, it is engineering. You can’t see electricity or quantum particles but that does not make them abstract ideas. File Attachment: barschallamicus.pdf (217 KB)

• Medistem: Bilski has considerable bleed-through to non-business method patents. File Attachment: medistemamicus.pdf (109 KB)

• Accenture and Pitney Bowes: The Federal Circuit's "only one test" rule is too rigid and goes against the Supreme Court's precedent that demonstrated flexibility in the Section 101 inquiry. [DDC Comment: The flexibility theme is strongly present in the past several years of Supreme Court patent cases. In eBay, MedImmune, and KSR, the Supreme Court saw a rigid Federal Circuit rule and made it more flexible.] File Attachment: accentureamicus.pdf (122 KB)

• Franklin Pierce Law Center: File Attachment: fplcamicus.pdf (128 KB)

• John Sutton: File Attachment: suttonamicus.pdf (120 KB)

PTO’s Current Examination Standards for Applying Bilski

DATE: January 7,2009
TO: Technology Center Directors Patent Examining Corps
FROM: John J. Love
SUBJECT: Guidance for Examining Process Claims in view of In re Bilski

Recently, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion affirming a final decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences sustaining a rejection of claims because they were not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The court's opinion clarified the standards applicable in determining whether a claimed method constitutes a statutory "process" under § 101. Office policy is consistent with the court's opinion in Bilski.

We are presently studying the full ramifications of the court's clarification and other recent developments in the law. In view of the Bilski decision, the guidelines are being redrafted to reflect the most current standards for subject matter eligibility. Until the guidelines are completed, examiners should continue to follow the current patent subject matter eligibility guidelines appearing in MPEP 2106, with the following modification.

As explained in a memorandum dated May 15, 2008, entitled "Clarification of 'Processes' under 35 USC § 101", a method claim must meet a specialized, limited meaning to qualify as a patent-eligible process claim. As clarified in Bilski, the test for a method claim is whether the claimed method is (1) tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) transforms a particular article to a different state or thing. This is called the "machine-or-transformation test". It should be noted that the machine-or-transformation test from Bilski is slightly different from the test explained in the May 15 Clarification memo, which was based on the Office's interpretation of the law prior to Bilski.

There are two corollaries to the machine-or-transformation test. First, a mere field-of-use limitation is generally insufficient to render an otherwise ineligible method claim patent- eligible. This means the machine or transformation must impose meaningful limits on the method claim's scope to pass the test. Second, insignificant extra-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process. This means reciting a specific machine or a particular transformation of a specific article in an insignificant step, such a data gathering or outputting, is not sufficient to pass the test.

For guidance, examiners are encouraged to consult their managers and to consult additional training materials as they are developed.

[Read the memo]

Obviousness; Scope and Content of the Prior Art; Secondary Considerations

Süd-Chemie v. Multisorb Technologies (Fed. Cir. 2009)

Süd-Chemie holds a patent covering a desiccant container for keeping products dry in shipment. In an infringement action, the Kentucky district court found the patent invalid as obvious. On appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated - holding that the lower court had erred in its analysis of the scope and content of the prior art. There are two primary take-away points from Sud-Chemie. First, obviousness jurisprudence continues to require detailed analysis of the claims and the prior art. I.e., KSR did not suddenly allow handwaving as a substitute for evidence and clear argument. Second, well presented secondary indicia of nonobviousness continue to be important in rebutting obviousness allegations.

Here, the claimed patent required the use of "compatible polymeric materials" used in a laminate seal. The prior art disclosed the use of laminate materials taken from the same general class of materials. However, the Federal Circuit recognized that the prior art did not specify that the selected materials be "compatible" in a way to allow for a proper laminate seal.

This is a case where a definition of the claim term in the specification greatly aided the patentee. The specification defined "compatible" materials as those that "mix on a molecular scale and will crystallize homogeneously." The prior art reference did not teach this form of compatibility. In fact, the prior art appeared to teach "incompatible" materials.  

Multisorb ignores the fact that while the ’942 patent requires the inner surfaces of the laminate and microporous films to have similar softening points, Komatsu [the prior art] requires the films to have dissimilar softening points. Komatsu thus does not teach the use of a microporous film that is compatible with the inner surface of the laminate film.

Looking at secondary considerations, the Federal Circuit instructed district courts to "attend carefully to any evidence of ... secondary considerations of nonobviousness." Here, the focus is on the surprising and unexpected result that compatible materials formed stronger bonds even without adhesive.

The Federal Circuit did not apply these findings to form a conclusion on the issue of obviousness. Rather, the court remanded for further development of the facts.

[NOTE- This decision is from January 2009]

Orion and Taurus: NPEs at the Federal Circuit

Erich Spangenberg has at least two pending appeals at the Federal Circuit: Taurus IP v. Daimlerchrysler (and Hyundai) and Orion IP v. Hyundai Motor. In the Taurus case, the Wisconsin District Court found the asserted patent (6,141,658) invalid and also asserted jurisdiction over Spangenberg and Orion IP via a veil-piercing theory. In a recent order, the Federal Circuit properly refused to allow Chrysler and Mercedes to present argument and documents "in camera" in that case. [Link] In the Orion case, a Texas court found Hyundai liable for infringement of the asserted patent (5,367,627) and awarded $34 million in damages. Hyundai has posted $25 million bond to stay the full payment until the appeal is concluded. [LINK ]. The general rule is that money damages will be stayed pending appeals if bond is posted, and that injunctive relief might be stayed.

The '627 patent is patent reformer's poster child for damages reform. The patent covers a method that helps a sales clerk properly order the parts that match a customer's needs. It is hard to know what the value of the incremental invention as compared with the prior art back in 1989 when the original application was filed. I will note that the $34 million patent has only 15 claims and includes means-plus-function language in the claims. Claim 1 of the patent is reproduced below:

1. A computerized method of selling parts for particular equipment specified by a customer, comprising the steps of: a) receiving information identifying a customer's parts requirements for the equipment, comprising the step of receiving equipment application information, comprising an identification of the equipment with which one or more parts are to be used; b) electronically specifying information identifying a plurality of parts and specifications for the parts; c) gathering parts-related information for one or more parts within the plurality of parts which meets the customer's requirements, comprising the step of electronically associating at least one of the parts within the plurality of parts with the received equipment application information; and d) receiving the gathered parts-related information and compiling the parts-related information into a proposal meeting the customer's requirements.

Although the '658 patent does not claim priority to the earlier '627 patent, it does have one overlapping inventor and a large amount of overlapping scope.

Classen v. Biogen: Request for Rehearing

In Classen v. Biogen, the Federal Circuit issued a one paragraph non-precedential opinion rejecting Dr. Classen's claimed method for evaluating a vaccine immunization schedule. The problem with the claims stems from the Bilsmane or transformation test. The appellate panel found that "the claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Dr. Classen's claims are neither "tied to a particular machine or apparatus" nor do they "transform[] a particular article into a different state or thing." Bilski, 545 F.3d at 954."

Now, Classen has filed its request for a rehearing en banc and is looking for further amicus support. The brief cites only one case -- Bilski -- and argues the facts: that at least the claim limitation of "immunizing mammals" is a qualifying transformation of matter.

Notes:

• Patently-O Discusses Classen v. Biogen
• classenrehearing.pdf
• Prometheus
• Prof. Holman

BPAI Again Rejects System Claims under Bilski

Ex parte Atkins (BPAI 2009)

The BPAI has again raised the issue of Post-Bilski patentable subject matter sua sponte. Like most claims challenged under Section101, Atkins claims also have serious nonobvousness and indefiniteness problems.

Atkins claims a method of "converting a unidirectional domain name to a bidirectional domain name." In reviewing the claim under Bilski, the BPAI noted that the claims do not "recite any machine or apparatus or call for transforming an article into a different state or thing. A domain name is simply a series of characters representing the address of a resource, such as a server, on the World Wide Web. All of the steps are data manipulation steps."

Atkins also claims a parallel "system" for converting the domain name. The BPAI rejected the system claims under Bilski since "those claims encompass any and all structures for performing the recited functions. As a result, [the system claims] are at least as broad as method claims ... which we have determined recite patent ineligible subject matter under Bilski."

• Ex parte Atkin.pdf

Bilski Petitions the Supreme Court to Decide Issues of Patentable Subject Matter

Bilski v. Doll (on petition for certiorari)

In Bilski, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit applied the “machine-or-transformation test” as the only test to be used in determining whether a claimed process is eligible for patenting under § 101. The decision holds that a claimed process either (1) be tied to a particular machine or apparatus or (2) transform a particular article into a different state or thing.

Bilski’s claimed method of hedging the risk of bad weather through commodities trading had been rejected by the USPTO as lacking patentable subject matter. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed – finding that the method failed the machine-or-transformation test.

Now, Bilski has petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari — asking the high court to determine whether the new test of patentable subject matter is the correct test.

The petition asks two questions:

Whether the Federal Circuit erred by holding that a “process” must be tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or transform a particular article into a different state or thing … despite this Court’s precedent declining to limit the broad statutory grant of patent eligibility for “any” new and useful process beyond excluding patents for “laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.”

Whether the Federal Circuit’s “machine-or-transformation” test for patent eligibility, which effectively forecloses meaningful patent protection to many business methods, contradicts the clear Congressional intent that patents protect “method[s] of doing or conducting business.” 35 U.S.C. § 273.

Under Supreme Court rules, any amici brief in support of the petitioner (Bilski) would be due within thirty days (Feb 27). Those in support of the respondent (PTO) would be due the dame day, but the PTO will likely seek an extension.

Notes

• File Attachment: Bilski Petition for Certiorari (665 KB)
• Federal Circuit Decision in Bilski
• The BPAI and the Machine or Transformation test of Bilski
• Should Patent Practitioners Support the Bilski Petition?
• Prometheus v. Mayo: Limits of Patentable Subject Matter in Medical Treatment and Diagnosis
• Drafting Software Patents Under Bilski
• Professor Collins: In re Bilski: Tangibility Gone “Meta”

Bilski at the Supreme Court

Bernard Bilski's petition for certiorari is due within days (unless an extension is granted). I think that there is a real question of whether (and how) the patent community should react to presentation of the case. Should the patent community support this case for Supreme Court review, wait for a better situated case, or sit content with the machine-or-transformation test outlined by the Federal Circuit in the en banc Bilski decision? Each position has its merits.

The case is well developed, parties and amici have already invested time standing behind the case. Yet, the underlying invention is not compelling (a method of hedging the risk of bad weather by using commodities trading) and issues of obviousness would almost certainly cloud the issues. There are many other potential cases in the pipeline, and the Supreme Court may properly wait to see how the new Bilski rule develops before weighing-in.

Federal Circuit Revises (Muzzles) Comiskey

In re Comiskey (Fed. Cir. 2009) (Revised Panel Opinion)(En Banc Order)

After a request for en banc rehearing, the original Federal Circuit panel has revised its decision in Comsikey – erasing the "misunderstood" phrases of the original opinion linking Sections 101 (subject matter) and 103 (nonobviousness). The original opinion implicitly held that any portion of an invention that would constitute nonstatutory subject matter would be considered de facto obvious. [Link]

The new opinion finds that Comiskey's method claims do not present patentable subject matter and remanded the case to the PTO to determine the subject matter eligibility of the system claims. The Federal Circuit refused to consider nonobviousness issues – even though nonobviousness was the sole issue presented in the original appeal. Subject matter eligibility had been raised sua sponte by the panel.

Judges Moore and Newman each dissented from the en banc order. Judge Moore argued that the decision violates the court's "well established precedent that this court will not consider new grounds of rejecting patent claims on appeal."

Bilski: Adding Obvious but Meaningful Limitations

Paul Gardner is PRG's Academic Director. In an e-mail, I asked him whether claim drafting techniques and strategies can be effectively tailored to satisfy Bilski's requirements without sacrificing valuable claim scope. Mr. Gardner says yes it can be done most of the time (and PRG is developing the CLE to tell you how). For Gardner, an important consideration in Bilski is between "meaningful limits" versus "nonobvious limits."

While Bilski requires that process claims recite machine or transformation limitations that "impose meaningful limits on the claim's scope," such limitations need not themselves be new or nonobvious. In other words, "meaningful limits" is not to be equated with "nonobvious limits," and the "meaningful limits" requirement may be satisfied – insofar as Section 101 patent-eligibility is concerned – by machine or transformation limitations which, standing alone, are old or obvious. Once Section 101 patent-eligibility is found to be present, novelty and nonobviousness of the claim as a whole may be satisfied by a novel and nonobvious algorithm in combination with the structural machine or transformation recitations.

This difference is seen in the Federal Circuit's discussion of Abele.

As Chief Judge Michel points out in Bilski, in Abele the CCPA found a broad method claim reciting only data manipulation steps (calculating the difference between two values and displaying the value of the difference) to be patent-ineligible, but found a dependent claim adding only that the data is "X-ray attenuation data produced in a two dimensional field by a computed tomography scanner" to be patent-eligible, because the data represented physical and tangible objects.

My own caution comes from the CAFC's nonobviousness analysis in the 2007 Comiskey decision. In describing that case, I led with the headline "35 USC 101 Finds its Teeth (Biting into Nonobviousness)" because Comiskey could be read to indicate that any portion of an invention that constitutes nonstatutory subject matter will be considered de facto obvious. Under this reading of Comiskey, obvious but meaningful limitations may overcome §101, but leave the claim extremely vulnerable under §103(a). The Supreme Court's 1978 Parker v. Flook decision follows this same line of thinking – treating a non-statutory (but previously unknown) algorithm "as though it were a familiar part of the prior art."

   

     

     

   

Professor Collins: In re Bilski: Tangibility Gone “Meta”

By Professor Kevin Emerson Collins (Indiana University Law School – Bloomington) [PDF Version]

In its recently issued en banc majority opinion in In re Bilski, the Federal Circuit articulates a "machine-or-transformation" test for patent-eligible subject matter under § 101 of the Patent Act. Although they are both legitimate questions, this short comment addresses neither whether there is a legitimate statutory basis for this test nor whether Supreme Court precedent should be interpreted so as to mandate (or even support) this test. Rather, it focuses solely on the criteria that the court offers to draw the line between patentable and unpatentable transformations. The Federal Circuit has added a new twist to the tangibility test that has for many years played a role in determining patent-eligibility: the tangibility test has gone "meta." The tangibility of the formal data that is actually transformed by a method of processing information is not relevant to patent-eligibility, but the tangibility of the things that the data is about—the tangibility of the informational content of the data or the things to which the data refers—now appears to be dispositive.

Bilski sets out a disjunctive two-prong "machine-or-transformation" test for patent-eligible subject matter: "A claimed process is surely patent-eligible subject matter under § 101 if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing." Slip op. at 10. The opinion declines to elaborate on the implications of the particular-machine prong of the test because the applicants conceded that their claim did not satisfy this prong. Id. at 24. It addresses only the transformation prong. It puts forward a conjunctive, two-prong test that must be satisfied for a method to "transform[] a particular article into a different state or thing" and thus to qualify as patent-eligible subject matter. First, the transformation implicated "must be central to the purpose of the claimed process." Id. In other words, it must also "impose meaningful limits on the claim's scope" and not "be insignificant extra-solution activity." Id. Second, the transformation only qualifies as patent-eligible if it transforms a certain type of "article." "[T]he main aspect of the transformation test that requires clarification here is what sorts of things constitute 'articles' such that their transformation is sufficient to impart patent-eligibility under § 101." Id. at 24–25. This is the distinction—the distinction between the "articles" that, if transformed, constitute patent-eligible subject matter and the other "articles" that, if transformed, do not constitute patent-eligible subject matter—on which the opinion elaborates at length, id. at 25–32, and on which this comment focuses.

Most importantly for the point addressed here, the Federal Circuit implies in Bilski that there are two different categories of "electronically-manipulated data," id. at 25, and that the data in each category is a different type of "article" insofar as patent-eligibility is concerned. The data in the first category is an "article" that, if transformed by a method claim, constitutes patent-eligible subject matter, but a method that transforms the data in the second category is not a patent-eligible method.

The first category is comprised of data that represents a "physical object or substance." Id. at 28. For example, citing In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902 (C.C.P.A. 1982), the Federal Circuit stated that a method that transforms data that "clearly represent[s] the physical and tangible objects, namely the structure of bones, organs, and other body tissues" is a patent-eligible method. Slip. op. at 26.

The second category of data seems to have two distinct subsets. The first subset is data that, as claimed, does not represent anything (or, alternatively, that can represent anything). This data is semantically empty; it is a variable without any specified informational content. Bilski again uses Abele—but this time the claims that the court rejected under § 101—as an example. Id. The fact that methods reciting the transformation of this meaningless (or infinitely meaningful) data are not patent-eligible should come as no surprise to those familiar with the history of patent-eligibility in the last several decades: methods that recite the manipulation of variables without semantic meaning are nothing more than methods that recite mathematical algorithms in the abstract.

The second subset of the second category, however, is likely to raise some eyebrows: it contains data that represents something specific or something in particular, but that something represented is itself intangible. Here, the informational content of the data—the thing in the world to which the data refers—is intangible. The Federal Circuit holds that the method at issue in Bilski is not patent-eligible because it "transform[s]" or "manipulat[es]" data representing "public or private legal obligations or relationships, business risks, or other such abstractions," which critically is not data "representative of physical objects or substances." Id. at 28.

The idea that the meaning that the user attributes to the data transformed or manipulated by an information processing method is relevant to patent-eligibility is not a novel feature of the "machine-or-transformation" test announced in Bilski. For example, the "concrete, useful and tangible result" test of State Street Bank required the courts to examine the meaning of the data, variables or "numbers" in the course of determining patent-eligibility. State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Group, 149 F.3d 1368, 1373–75 (Fed. Cir. 1998). However, what is new in Bilski is the importance now placed on the physicality of the thing to which the data refers. Thus, the tangibility test has gone "meta": it is no longer the tangibility of jostling electrons that is of concern (as it was in the early days of patents on computer-executed information processing methods), but the tangibility of the stuff represented by those electrons-as-symbols. In the language of semiotics, the tangibility analysis has shifted from a concern about the tangibility of the signifier—the physical configuration of matter that forms a symbol—to a concern about the tangibility of the signified—the informational content of or the thing represented by the symbol.

There is in my opinion much that needs to be said about this move in Bilski that takes the long-standing concern about tangibility in the patent-eligibility analysis "meta," transforming it from a concern about a signifier to a concern about a signified. Here, however, I limit myself to raising two initial, narrow questions.

First, the move raises a normative question: Why should we treat information about tangible things in a manner that is categorically different from the manner in which we treat information about intangible things? Having taken its cue from the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit clearly wants to prevent patent-eligible method claims from pre-empting mathematical "fundamental principles." Slip op. at 26. However, the most appropriate means to achieve this end would seem to be a focus on the specificity, not the intangibility, of what is meant. Why should the manipulation of data that represents my height (a presumptively physical property of my body) be patentable, yet the manipulation of data that represents my expected longevity (a property that is difficult to classify as a physical one) be unpatentable?

Second, the move raises concerns about administrability. Is data about my expected longevity about something physical, namely my body? If it is, then why isn't the data at issue in Bilski also about something tangible? The data is after all about a property of lumps of coal, namely their expected future rate of consumption or the legal rights that individuals have with respect to them. Or, to formulate the administrability problem in a recursive manner, what about data that is about the structural qualities of electronic signals? To determine whether a method that manipulates such data is patent-eligible, it would seem again to be necessary to confront the tangibility of an electronic signal—the very question that patent doctrine has been trying to render irrelevant for several decades—but this time with the signal as a signified rather than as a signifier.

CLE: How to Draft Software Claims under Bilski

In Bilski, the Federal Circuit laid down the law of subject matter eligibility under Section 101 of the Patent Act. To be patent eligible, a claimed process must either: (1) be tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) transform a particular article into a different state or thing. In all likelihood, claim limitations focused at general machines such as a "computer" will not be considered tying to "particular machine." Bilski did not, however, decide that question – Bilski's claims were admittedly divorced from any particular machine. On the transformation side, the court provided the example from Abele where graphically displaying "X-ray attenuation data produced in a two dimensional field by a computed tomography scanner" was sufficient transformation. Bilski's claims were essentially knocked-out on the new mental steps doctrine – a process where all the claimed steps "may be performed entirely in the human mind is obviously not tied to any machine and does not transform any article into a different state or thing."

Two additional points: Although the Federal Circuits points to the machine-or-transformation test as the sole test for Section 101 patentability, the court approved two ‘corollaries.’  First, field-of-use limitations continue to be “generally insufficient to render an otherwise ineligible process claim patent-eligible.” Second, "insignificant postsolution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process." (quoting Diehr).  Thus, merely reciting a specific machine or particular transformation will not bring a claim into the realm of patentable subject matter unless the recitation is more than mere insignificant postolution or extra-solution activity.

Going forward, I do not believe that these limitations will have a significant impact on a skilled practitioner's ability to patent software innovations. However, I would like community input on how you might properly claim computer software in a way that avoids § 101 rejections?

Patenting Tax Strategies Under Bilski

Except for the few patent holders and Accenture, the tax strategy business community has been largely anti-patent – going so far as to lobby congress to introduce legislation to create a specific exception that would block enforcement of those patents.

In Bilski, the Federal Circuit refused to categorically exclude any particular fields of business or technology from the scope of patent protection. The court specifically mentioned software and business methods as still patentable. Presumably, tax strategies are still patentable as well. The closest the court came to creating an exclusion is for purely 'mental' processes – where each step of the process could be performed in the human mind.

Rather than an approach focusing on specific exclusions, the court applied the machine-or-transformation rule: A process is patent eligible under §101 if "(1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state of things." Bilski's claim was not patentable as a mental process. Additionally the Bilski claim failed the machine-or-transformation test because it was (1) not tied to any machine and (2) the alleged transformations in Bilski were not sufficient because they did not transform "physical objects or substances" nor did the transform articles "representative of physical objects or substances." Notably, transformation of "legal obligations or relationships, business risks, or other such abstractions" do not qualify as 'transformations' under the new test. The Federal Circuit left the State Street patent hanging – we know the test used in State Street was wrong, but we don't know whether the claimed invention would be patentable under the new test.

Going forward, tax strategies (and business methods generally) that necessarily need computer assistance will be able to obtain protection by including sufficient recitation of ties to "particular machines." Practically, the links should be tied to particular portions of the computer to ensure that the tied machine is "particular" enough. On the transformation side, it is unclear whether the transformation of money will be considered sufficiently "representative of physical objects or substances."

Links:

• Tax Law Prof
• Linda M. Beale

In re Bilski: Patentable Process Must Either (1) be Tied to a particular machine or (2) Transform a Particular Article

In re Bilski, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. 2008)(en banc)

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTO's Board of Patent Appeals (BPAI) finding that Bilski's claimed invention (a method of hedging risks in commodities trading) does not satisfy the patentable subject matter requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101. In doing so, the nine-member majority opinion (penned by Chief Judge Michel) spelled out the "machine-or-transformation" test as the sole test of subject matter eligibility for a claimed process.

The Supreme Court … has enunciated a definitive test to determine whether a process claim is tailored narrowly enough to encompass only a particular application of a fundamental principle rather than to pre-empt the principle itself. A claimed process is surely patent-eligible under § 101 if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing. …. Because the applicable test to determine whether a claim is drawn to a patent-eligible process under § 101 is the machine-or-transformation test set forth by the Supreme Court and clarified herein, and Applicants' claim here plainly fails that test, the decision of the Board is AFFIRMED.

State Street Test Is Out: In State Street, the Federal Circuit used the "useful, concrete, and tangible result" of a process as a touchstone for patentability. In Bilski, the en banc panel found the State Street formulation "insufficient to determine whether a claim is patent-eligible under § 101."

[W]e also conclude that the "useful, concrete and tangible result" inquiry is inadequate and reaffirm that the machine-or-transformation test outlined by the Supreme Court is the proper test to apply.

Some Business Methods and Software Are Still In: Still, the court made clear that business methods and Software will still be patentable – if they meet the machine-or-transformation test.

We rejected [a categorical] exclusion in State Street, noting that the so-called "business method exception" was unlawful and that business method claims (and indeed all process claims) are "subject to the same legal requirements for patentability as applied to any other process or method." We reaffirm this conclusion. … [A]lthough invited to do so by several amici, we [also] decline to adopt a broad exclusion over software or any other such category of subject matter beyond the exclusion of claims drawn to fundamental principles set forth by the Supreme Court

To be clear, the machine-or-transformation test is not a physicality test – i.e., a claim can still be patentable even if it does not recite sufficient "physical steps." On the flip-side, "a claim that recites 'physical steps' but neither recites a particular machine or apparatus, nor transforms any article into a different state or thing, is not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter." Here, the court spelled out the specific issue in mind: a claimed process where every step may be performed entirely in the human mind. In that situation, the machine-or-transformation test would lead to unpatentability. "Of course, a claimed process wherein all of the process steps may be performed entirely in the human mind is obviously not tied to any machine and does not transform any article into a different state or thing. As a result, it would not be patent-eligible under § 101."

Along this line, the court also dispelled two rising concerns, noting that that (1) neither novelty nor obviousness have any relevance to the section 101 inquiry, and (2) the fact that an individual claim element is – standing alone – patent ineligible does not render the claim unpatentable because patent eligibility is considered while examining the claim as a whole.

What is a Transformation?: The courts have already developed an understanding of transformation as it relates to the Section 101 inquiry. Here, the Federal Circuit referred to the distinction made in the 1982 Abele case. There, the court distinguished between two of Abele's claims – finding only one patentable. The unpatentable claim recited "a process of graphically displaying variances of data from average values" without specifying "any particular type or nature of data … or from where the data was obtained or what the data represented." The patentable dependent claim identified the "data [as] X-ray attenuation data produced in a two dimensional field by a computed tomography scanner." In retrospect, the Federal Circuit sees the difference between these two claims to be that of transformation. The second claim included sufficiently specific transformation because it changed "raw data into a particular visual depiction of a physical object on a display." Notably, the transformation did not require any underlying physical object. As the court noted later in the opinion, the transformed articles must be "physical objects or substances [or] representative of physical objects or substances."

The Bilski claims themselves were not seen as transforming an article:

Purported transformations or manipulations simply of public or private legal obligations or relationships, business risks, or other such abstractions cannot meet the test because they are not physical objects or substances, and they are not representative of physical objects or substances. Applicants' process at most incorporates only such ineligible transformations. . . . As discussed earlier, the process as claimed encompasses the exchange of only options, which are simply legal rights to purchase some commodity at a given price in a given time period. The claim only refers to "transactions" involving the exchange of these legal rights at a "fixed rate corresponding to a risk position." Thus, claim 1 does not involve the transformation of any physical object or substance, or an electronic signal representative of any physical object or substance.

The principle behind the test is to prevent a patentee from obtaining claims that preempt the use of fundamental principles. That principle reaches back more than 150 years to the Morse case where the inventor was precluded from claiming all uses of electromagnetism to print characters at a distance.

We believe this is faithful to the concern the Supreme Court articulated as the basis for the machine-or-transformation test, namely the prevention of pre-emption of fundamental principles. So long as the claimed process is limited to a practical application of a fundamental principle to transform specific data, and the claim is limited to a visual depiction that represents specific physical objects or substances, there is no danger that the scope of the claim would wholly pre-empt all uses of the principle.

What is a "Particular Machine"?: For software and business methods, the question will remain as to whether a general purpose computer is sufficiently particular to qualify as a "particular machine." "We leave to future cases the elaboration of the precise contours of machine implementation, as well as the answers to particular questions, such as whether or when recitation of a computer suffices to tie a process claim to a particular machine." As Professor Duffy noted in an earlier Patently-O article, the PTO Board of Patent Appeals (BPAI) has already answered this question: "A general purpose computer is not a particular machine, and thus innovative software processes are unpatentable if they are tied only to a general purpose computer." See Ex parte Langemyr (May 28, 2008) and Ex parte Wasynczuk (June 2, 2008). More commonly, the claim may tie the software to computer memory or a processor – is that sufficiently particular? I suspect this fact pattern will arise shortly.

Unpatentability Affirmed

Notes:

• Although three dissenting opinions were filed, Judge Newman is the only judge who found patentable subject matter in Bilski's claim.
• In Dissent, Judge Mayer thought the decision did not go far enough: "Affording patent protection to business methods lacks constitutional and statutory support, serves to hinder rather than promote innovation and usurps that which rightfully belongs in the public domain." Citing work by Professors Dreyfuss and Pollack, Mayer argues that business method patents have the overall effect of stifling innovation by restricting competition.
• In his Dissent, Judge Rader asks the insightful question of why a new test is necessary when settled law already answers the question. Rader would have decided the opinion with one line: "Because Bilski claims merely an abstract idea, this court affirms the Board's rejection." I believe Rader's position is quite defensible. In particular, the majority justifies its need for the test as a way to ensure that we avoid the "preemption of fundamental principles." In the majority construct, the machine-or-transformation test serves as a fairly accurate proxy for preventing preemption. The court does not, however, answer why any proxy is necessary – if the purpose is to exclude overbroad abstract ideas why not simply rely on the current rule preventing patenting of abstract ideas (as well as the law requiring full enablement)?

Concurring opinion by Judge DYK (joined by Judge LINN) attempt to reconcile the history of the patent system with the new rule of patentability.

Paul Cole, Patentability of Computer Software As Such

In Symbian Limited v. Comptroller General of Patents [2008] EWCA Civ 1066, the UK Court of Appeal recently took a broader approach to patentability of software. UK patent attorney and author Paul Cole has written a short article for the Patently-O Patent Law Journal discussing the case and its impact. [Paul Cole Article]. The opinion cites John Duffy's recent "Death of Google's Patents" article also published on Patently-O.

• Paul Cole Article
• John Duffy Article
• Opinion: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/1066.html
• Opinion (Lower Court): Symbian v. Comptroller General of Patents
• Paul Cole's Book: Fundamentals of Patent Drafting

The Death of Google's Patents?

By John F. Duffy* [File Attachment (42 KB)]

            The Patent and Trademark Office has now made clear that its newly developed position on patentable subject matter will invalidate many and perhaps most software patents, including pioneering patent claims to such innovators as Google, Inc.

            In a series of cases including In re Nuijten, In re Comiskey and In re Bilski, the Patent and Trademark Office has argued in favor of imposing new restrictions on the scope of patentable subject matter set forth by Congress in § 101 of the Patent Act.  In the most recent of these three—the currently pending en banc Bilski appeal—the Office takes the position that process inventions generally are unpatentable unless they “result in a physical transformation of an article” or are “tied to a particular machine.”[1] Perhaps, the agency has conceded, some “new, unforeseen technology” might warrant an “exception” to this formalistic test, but in the agency’s view, no such technology has yet emerged so there is no reason currently to use a more inclusive standard.[2]  

            The Bilski en banc hearing attracted enormous attention, and yet there has remained a sense among many patent practitioners that the PTO’s attempts to curtail section 101 would affect only a few atypical patent claims.  The vast bulk of patents on software, business and information technology are thought by some not to be threatened because those innovations are typically implemented on a machine—namely, a computer—and the tie to a machine would provide security against the agency’s contractions of § 101.  Even if that view were right, the contraction of patent eligibility would be very troubling because the patent system is supposed to be designed to encourage the atypical, the unusual and the innovative.  But that view is wrong.

            The logic of the PTO’s positions in Nuijten, Comiskey and Bilski has always threatened to destabilize whole fields of patenting, most especially in the field of software patents.  If the PTO’s test is followed, the crucial question for the vitality of patents on computer implemented inventions is whether a general purpose computer qualifies as a “particular” machine within the meaning of the agency’s test.  In two recent decisions announced after the oral arguments in the Bilski case, Ex parte Langemyr (May 28, 2008) and Ex parte Wasynczuk (June 2, 2008),[3] the PTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences has now supplied an answer to that question: A general purpose computer is not a particular machine, and thus innovative software processes are unpatentable if they are tied only to a general purpose computer.  

USPTO Examiner Guidance on Business "Processes"

Patent Attorney Jeff Spangler recently attended the PTO’s business method partnership where he received a copy of the written clarification given to examiners to help them determine when a claimed business method is eligible for patent protection as a statutory process under 35 USC 101.  According to the memo:

“Based on Supreme Court precedent and recent Federal Circuit decisions, the Offic’s guidance to examiners is that a Section 101 process must (1) be tied to another statutory class (such as a particular apparatus) or (2) transform underlying subject matter (such as an article or material) to adifferent thing. If neither of these requirements is met by the claim, the method is not a patent eligible process under Section 101 and should be rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.

An example of a method claim that would not qualify as a statutory process would be a claim that recited purely mental steps. Thus, to qualify as a Section 101 statutory process, the claim should positively recite the other statutory class (the thing or product) to which it is tied, for example, by identifying the apparatus that accomplishes the method steps, or positively recite the subject matter being transformed, for example by identifying the material that is being changed to a different state.