1 / 27

Software and Business Method Patents in the United States

Software and Business Method Patents in the United States. Gregory J. Kirsch Atlanta, Georgia U.S.A. Telephone: +1-678-420-9366 gkirsch@needlerosenberg.com. Software Patents. Case law well-settled in U.S. Early cases – a bit confused Diamond v. Diehr (S.Ct. 1981) More recent case law

fisseha
Download Presentation

Software and Business Method Patents in the United States

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Software and Business Method Patents in the United States Gregory J. Kirsch Atlanta, Georgia U.S.A. Telephone: +1-678-420-9366 gkirsch@needlerosenberg.com

  2. Software Patents • Case law well-settled in U.S. • Early cases – a bit confused • Diamond v. Diehr (S.Ct. 1981) • More recent case law • Software is patentable • A computer is simply a programmable machine

  3. Business Method Patents(A brief history) • What is a “business method”? • Pre-1998 • U.S. Patent Office has been issuing “business method” patents for hundreds of years • 1799 – Perkins – “Detecting Counterfeit Notes” • 1815 – Kneass – “Mode of Preventing Counterfeiting” • 1790-1840 – 41 financial patents granted • bank notes, bills of credit, bills of exchange, check blanks, detecting and preventing counterfeiting, coin counting, interest calculation tables, and lotteries

  4. Business Method Patents(A brief history) • Merrill Lynch v. Paine Webber (1983) • ML’s patent on the Cash Management Account (CMA) • U.S. Patent 4,346,442 • Brokerage, money market and credit card/checking account combined into one • Patentable subject matter upheld • Case settled shortly thereafter

  5. Business Method Patents(A brief history) • State Street Bank v. Signature Financial (Fed. Cir 1998) • Hub and spoke model for tax benefit • Business method patentable if useful, concrete and tangibleresult • Court: not new law • There never was a “business method exception”

  6. Business Method Patents(A brief history) • AT&T v. Excel (1999) • Claim 1 • … generating a message record for an interexchange call between an originating subscriber and a terminating subscriber, and • including, in said message record, a primary interexchange carrier (PIC) indicator having a value which is a function of whether or not the interexchange carrier associated with said terminating subscriber is a predetermined one of said interexchange carriers. • Focus not on whether “mathematical algorithm at work?” • Rather, “whether the algorithm-containing invention, as a whole, produces a tangible, useful result.”

  7. Business Method Patents(Recent Trends) • Post State Street (1998) • “the floodgates opened” • Many credit State Street • Other factors? • Growth of Internet, and new business methods that followed? • Perhaps State Street simply legitimized a trend that already existed?

  8. Patent Filing TrendsClass 705(Data Processing: Financial, Business Practice, Management, Or Cost/Price Determination) Source: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

  9. Patent Assignees 1999-2004(Class 705) Source: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

  10. Recent Enforcement Trends • More patent litigation • Patent holding company model • Company solely in the patent enforcement business • All types of patents (including business methods) • Buying old or inactive patent portfolios, such as business method patents from Internet boom • Can’t usually be counter-sued, since they aren’t by definition infringing • “Patent Trolls”

  11. Recent Enforcement Trends • Patent Holding Companies • Acacia • Publicly traded • Large acquired patent portfolio • Large war chest • Quite aggressive • Intellectual Ventures • Nathan Myhrvold (former CTO of Microsoft) • Invention house • $350M war chest • More and more others

  12. Recent Enforcement Trends • Patent Holding Companies • NTP v. RIM • NTP formed by inventor and patent attorney • Patents cover coupling of wireless e-mail devices to traditional e-mail systems • NTP has largely prevailed in litigation, yet USPTO has rejected many of the claims • Injunction hearing set for February 24, 2006 • High-stakes for both companies • $450M  $1B?

  13. Recent Enforcement Trends • 35 U.S.C. 271(f) • Whoever without authority supplies … in or from the United States … the components of a patented invention, where such components are uncombined … to actively induce the combination of such components outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer.

  14. Recent Enforcement Trends • 35 U.S.C. 271(f) • Eolas v. Microsoft, 399 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005) • Export of “master disks” containing infringing software for inclusion into a foreign-made infringing product constitutes the “supply” of a “component”, under § 271(f) • AT&T v. Microsoft, Appeal No. 04-1285 (Fed. Cir. July 13, 2005) • Foreign-made copies of the master disks were “components” of the patented invention “supplied from” the United States under § 271(f), even though the copying occurred entirely outside the United States

  15. Software and Business Method Patents • Arguments against such patents • Lack of prior art • Lack of Patent Office expertise • Unnecessary – innovation will occur without patents • High transaction (defense) costs • Many patented methods are simply automated versions of old manual processes

  16. Software and Business Method Patents • Rebuttal • Availability of prior art getting better • Examination expertise getting better • Development costs high in a complex world • Patents are needed to recoup such investments. • Transaction costs high in other technology areas as well • A cost of doing business • Automated business methods often can do what manual processes can’t • Non-obviousness hurdle must still be overcome.

  17. Software and Business Method Patents • Similar to arguments against software patents years ago • However, no evidence of widespread harm to software industry • Patents have become part of business plans for software companies • Many innovative software companies have been built around strong patent portfolios

  18. Studies • Bronwyn Hall, “Business Method Patents, Innovation and Policy”, (2003) http://repositories.cdlib.org/iber/econ/E03-331 • Patent system provides incentives for innovations with high development costs • Less beneficial for incremental innovations that must be combined • Business methods are more likely to fall into latter category • No definitive conclusion

  19. Studies • Allison and Tiller, “The Business Method Patent Myth,” 18 Berk Tech. L.J. 987, 1003-04 (Fall 2003) http://btlj.boalt.org/data/articles/18-4_fall-2003_2-allison.pdf • Internet business method patents no worse than patents in other fields, and possibly better • Chasm between perception and reality • Efforts to single out business method patents for special treatment not sound

  20. Recent Legal Developments(Are major changes imminent?) • Ex Parte Lundgren • U.S. Patent Office Board of Appeals • No more “technical arts” requirement • US Patent Office Interim Examination Guidelines • Published by U.S. Patent Office in late 2005 • Generally affirmed State Street • Invention must be useful, concrete, tangible • What does this mean? • Laboratory Corp. v. Metabolite • On appeal to the US Supreme Court • Not “business method” per se, but relevant • Claim directed to “scientific principle” • assaying a body fluid, and correlating an elevated level of total homocysteine in the body fluid with a deficiency of cobalamin or folate • Will the Supreme Court change anything (everything)?

  21. Ongoing Challenges • Definitions • Useful? • Concrete? • Tangible? • Prior art • Very difficult problem • Most relevant prior art isn’t published, or is difficult to obtain or extract • No clear answers

  22. Ongoing Challenges • Expertise at U.S.Patent Office • Ability to search for prior art • Understanding of business processes • Situation has improved • Better training • Second level of review • Has pendulum swung too far? • Its become quite difficult to have business method patents granted

  23. Ongoing Challenges • Term of patents • Is (20-x) years too long for software and business method patents? • How do business methods/software compare to the often-cited pharmaceutical innovations? • Do we need different terms for different types of technologies • A nightmare to implement • Would this promote gamesmanship? • Do longer terms really hurt anybody?

  24. The Future • Potential Patent Reform • Possible changes directly affecting Software/BM patents • Post grant opposition • Mandatory publication after 18 months • First-to-invent  First inventor to file • Elimination of best mode requirement • Other possible changes • Limits on continuation applications • Limits on number of claims

  25. The Future • U.S. Patent Office prior art initiatives • Open source initiative • Organize open source software into different searchable categories • Make available to patent examiners and the public • Patent quality index

  26. “… everything that can be invented has been invented.” Charles H. Duell U.S. Patent Commissioner 1899

  27. Software and Business Method Patents in the United States Atlanta, Georgia Telephone: (678) 420-9366 gkirsch@needlerosenberg.com

More Related