By Evan Jensen In its much-anticipated Alice v CLS Bank decision the Supreme Court held that Alice’s software patent was patent-ineligible subject matter under §101. But in its decision the Supreme Court seems to have blended a §101 analysis with a §103 analysis. The Court seems to infer that well-known ideas, such as methods that are fundamental to modern economy, are abstract and therefore patent-ineligible under §101. There is no debate that abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter. No one may claim exclusive rights to the idea of addition, or of binary-decimal conversion, or any other generic abstract mathematical or conceptual idea. To allow a patent on an abstract idea would preempt everyone else from using that idea, greatly discouraging innovation, which is contrary to the primary goals of the patent system. The issue is which software claims, or whether software claims in general, are made patent-ineligible by the Alice decision.
By Zi Wang In Fort Properties, Inc. v. American Master Lease LLC, 2012 WL 603969 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that a method patent for creating real estate investment instrument adapted for performing tax-deferred exchanges is invalid because it is directed at an unpatentable abstract idea, even though the claim language of the patent at issue recited a computer in certain operations. American Master Lease LLC (“AML”) holds the ‘788 patent at issue. The ‘788 patent discloses an investment tool designed to enable property owners to buy and sell properties without incurring tax liability pursuant to a tax law provision that exempts certain investment property exchanges when an owner of investment property exchanges one property for another of like kind and certain conditions are met. Specifically, the claims require the aggregation of a number of properties into a “real estate portfolio.” The property interests in this portfolio are then divided into shares, called “deedshares”,
By Robert Lower The Supreme Court handed down its decision in Mayo v. Prometheus Laboratories March 20, 2012, holding U.S. Patent Nos. 6,355,623 and 6,680,302 invalid for failure to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 101. Prometheus is the exclusive licensee to these patents, which boil down to a process for calculating a dosing regimen for a drug that threads the needle between an inefficacy and overdose, based on the level of metabolites in patients’ blood. The court referenced the first claim of the ‘623 patent in reaching its opinion: We claim: 1. A method of optimizing therapeutic efficacy for treatment of an immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder, comprising: (a) administering a drug providing 6-thioguanine to a subject having said immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder; and (b) determining the level of 6-thioguanine in said subject having said immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder, wherein the level of 6-thioguanine less than about 230 pmol per 8 x 108 red blood cells indicates a need to increase the amount of said
By Chris Reaves HTC Corporation v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG, No. 2011-1004, Fed. Cir. Jan. 30, 2012 In a recent infringement suit, a patent for a cell phone network mobile station narrowly survived several attempts at invalidation through indefiniteness. The Federal Circuit applied numerous rules of claim interpretation, especially for means-plus-function claims, and reminded the defense of the importance of addressing all issues at the trial level. The case serves as a good lesson in “what not to do” for both prosecutors and litigants. Background IPCom GmbH & Co., KG owns US Patent No. 6,879,830 (‘830) and other patents, which go to cell phone networks and their methods. ‘830 in particular discusses an efficient cellular phone network “handover” – the process by which one cell tower takes over a call from another as the phone moves from place to place. IPCom and the HTC Corporation countersued each other for, respectively, infringement of three of IPCom’s patents, including ‘830, and
In Ultramercial LLC v. Hulu LLC, 657 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2011), Ultramercial LLC’s patent claims a method “for distribution of products over the Internet via a facilitator”. As part of the claim, the facilitating web server offers a “sponsor message” to a potential viewer, who, if he views the sponsor message, is then allowed access to a desired “media product”. The claim also recites limitations related to interactions with the sponsors both before and after delivery of the sponsor message.