Ancora Technologies v HTC America Ancora Techs. v. HTC America Berkheimer v. HP Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. Enfish Enfish LLC Enfish v. Microsoft Federal Circuit Finjan v. Blue Coat Systems IPWatchdog Articles McRO v Bandai McRo v. Bandai Namco Games America patent Patent Drafting Patent Drafting Basics Patent Eligibility patent eligible patentable subject matter Patents software patent Technology Thales Visionix Thales Visionix Inc. v. U.S. USPTO

Software Patent Drafting Lessons from the Key Lighthouse Cases

Software Patent Drafting Lessons from the Key Lighthouse Cases

“Obtaining a U.S. software patent is easier today than it was just a year ago, but still harder than it was five or ten years ago. These seven ‘lighthouse’ cases contain critical lessons for drafters that can improve the chances of success.”

Acquiring a software program patent in the present day is simpler than it was only a yr in the past in most Artwork Models at the United States Patent and Trademark Workplace (USPTO), because of the Federal Circuit’s determination in Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and the USPTO’s steerage to patent examiners on the Berkheimer determination. Nonetheless, acquiring a software program patent is harder than it was 5 years in the past, and far more troublesome than it was ten years in the past. The patent legal guidelines referring to software program have been in a state of close to fixed flux over the final decade.

In an effort to have the greatest probability at acquiring a software program patent, and at having that patent survive any publish grant challenges after it’s issued, it’s critically necessary that the description of the invention be as full as attainable at the time of submitting the first patent software. This implies the description should clearly determine the invention as of day one, even in the event you file a provisional patent software, since a provisional patent software should utterly articulate the invention with sufficient element to fulfill 35 U.S.C. 112 in an effort to present precedence.

That is straightforward sufficient to say, however what does it actually imply? Over the final a number of years we’ve got discovered from quite a lot of instances what sort of data the Federal Circuit will look to with a view to be persuaded that the claimed invention is actually revolutionary and is both not an summary concept, or—whether it is an summary concept at its core—has sufficient accoutrements surrounding it in order that it does, actually, outline an invention.

[[Advertisement]]

The Software Patent Lighthouse Cases

In an effort to adequately determine and describe a software-related invention (also called a computer-implemented invention) think about the classes from the following instances. These are the instances you need the Federal Circuit to use and analogize to your claimed invention as a result of, once they do, the claims are patent eligible. This makes these instances “lighthouse” instances with important classes for drafters.

  1. The important thing to acquiring a software program patent is to completely describe the system and processes from a technological degree. As Decide Chen defined in DDR Holdings, to ensure that software program patent claims to be patent eligible they need to not “merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet.” To be patent eligible, claims to software program have to be “rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” To have a sensible probability of being patented, the pc technique have to be tied to a specific pc know-how in a significant and substantial method. Stated one other approach, the technique actually must be carried out by and thru a concrete and tangible system, the place the system and processes are painstakingly described.
  2. In Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit defined that the Supreme Courtroom advised in Alice that claims that enhance the functioning of a pc won’t succumb to the summary concept exception. The Federal Circuit relied on this necessary caveat as a result of, based on the panel, the claims at difficulty in Enfish plainly targeted on enhancements to pc performance. This led the panel to unanimously conclude that “the claims at issue in this appeal are not directed to an abstract idea within the meaning of Alice. Rather, they are directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate, embodied in the self-referential table.” Subsequently, this can be very essential to explain the invention as an enchancment, with a minimum of a while in the specification spent explaining precisely what the invention offers that’s superior in contrast with the prior artwork (clearly being cautious to not run afoul of KSR considerations).
  3. Pc-implemented strategies are pushed by guidelines engines that outline the who, what, the place, when, why and the way. These guidelines engines are of essential significance, each to the programmer and the patent draftsperson. The presence of guidelines, particularly outlined in the specification, after which included into the claims, was what the Federal Circuit relied upon to seek out the lip synchronization invention patent eligible in McRo v. Bandai Namco Video games Am., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). When addressing the particular limitations of the guidelines, the Federal Circuit in McRodid not cite to Enfish, however did observe: “The specific, claimed features of these rules allow for the improvement realized by the invention.”  Decide Reyna additional wrote: “As the specification confirms, the claimed improvement here is allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters’ that previously could only be produced by human animators.”
  4. In Thales Visionix Inc. v. U.S., 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the Federal Circuit was confronted with an invention referring to an inertial monitoring system for monitoring the movement of an object relative to a shifting reference body. The claims present a way that eliminates many “complications” inherent in earlier options for figuring out place and orientation of an object on a shifting platform, with a number of benefits disclosed over the prior artwork in the specification. The panel discovered the “claims directed to a new and useful technique for using sensors to more efficiently track an object on a moving platform.” Whereas that is definitely the sort of invention that may be patented, the claims have been a bit weaker than perfect. With a special panel, it will be straightforward to see this case going one other method. What probably saved the claims was the specification explaining that the inertial sensors don’t use a standard strategy with respect to measuring inertial modifications relative to the earth, which allowed the panel to comply with Enfish. Nonetheless, it might have been preferable to draft the claims to include that core uniqueness in the claims.
  5. Are you able to learn into the specification from the claims? Completely! The regulation says you can’t impermissibly learn into the claims from the specification, so there have to be a time and place when it’s permissible. It’s permissible with respect to definitions and disclosure of applied sciences. The entire level of the specification is to be the glossary for the claims and to facilitate in understanding what’s in the claims. There isn’t any higher instance of this than Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Methods, 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018). At first look, the claims are very brief—even cryptic. However there are phrases repeatedly used all through the claims which are mentioned and outlined in the specification. And the specification defines a revolutionary pc virus scanning know-how that was pioneered by Finjan. Decide Dyk, writing for the panel, defined the “method of claim 1 employs a new kind of file that enables a computer security system to do things it could not do before.” That is vital as a result of Decide Dyk, till lately, has appeared reluctant to seek out software program patent eligible. So, the lesson right here is straightforward: In case your shopper is a pioneer and the innovation is essential, make certain the specification explains that! In fact, don’t simply say it; actually clarify the distinction a la Enfish.
  6. Graphical consumer interfaces can obtain design patents, however they will additionally obtain utility patents. See Core Wi-fi Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, 880 F.3d. 1356 (2018). The claims disclosed a selected method of displaying a restricted set of data to the consumer, relatively than utilizing typical consumer interface strategies to show a generic index on a pc. Like the improved methods claimed in Enfish, Thales, Visible Reminiscence, and Finjan, these claims recite a selected enchancment over prior techniques. Decide Moore defined the velocity of a consumer’s navigation by means of numerous views and home windows might be improved as a result of it “saves the user from navigating to the required application, opening it up, and then navigating within that application to enable the data of interest to be seen or a function of interest to be activated.” In fact, to matter, the specification wanted to adequately outline the enchancment in the aforementioned functioning of computer systems.
  7. If the significance of a radical description defining the core uniqueness of the innovation in the specification hasn’t shone by way of but, the Federal Circuit’s current determination in Ancora Applied sciences, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018) ought to assist minimize by means of the fog. Counting on Enfish, Decide Taranto, joined by Judges Dyk and Wallach, discovered that the claims at challenge coated “a concrete assignment of specified functions among a computer’s components to improve computer security.” The patent itself defined the claimed invention did this by counting on particular and distinctive traits not beforehand utilized in the approach now claimed. Decide Taranto defined that the Courtroom lacked any foundation for disputing what was stated in the patent itself, and what was stated is strengthened by the prosecution historical past, together with the examiner’s said causes for allowance. Thus, the take-away lesson right here is once more the significance of describing the know-how absolutely and clearly, together with asserting its uniqueness, whereas clearly paying cautious consideration to not stroll into obviousness rejections.

The Writer

Gene Quinn

Gene Quinn

is a Patent Lawyer and Editor and founding father of IPWatchdog.com. Gene can also be a principal lecturer in the PLI Patent Bar Evaluation Course and an lawyer with Widerman Malek. Gene’s specialty is in the space of strategic patent consulting, patent software drafting and patent prosecution. He consults with attorneys dealing with peculiar procedural points at the Patent Workplace, advises buyers and executives on patent regulation modifications and pending litigation issues, and works with start-up companies all through the United States and round the world, primarily coping with software program and pc associated improvements. Gene is admitted to apply regulation in New Hampshire, is a Registered Patent Lawyer and can also be admitted to apply earlier than the United States Courtroom of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. CLICK HERE to ship Gene a message.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and feedback on IPWatchdog.com don’t represent authorized recommendation, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles revealed categorical the private opinion and views of the writer and shouldn’t be attributed to the writer’s employer, shoppers or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Learn extra.

Talk about this