Date post: | 03-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | roy-carter |
View: | 212 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 1
3rd Annual Information Technology Law Seminar
The Patentability of
Computer-Related Inventions
by Roberta J. MorrisLecturer, Stanford Law School
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 2
For today, the slides will be posted at http://stanford.edu/~rjmorris/icle.ppt
The final version, including survey results,
will be linked on http://stanford.edu/~rjmorris. Search for “September 2010”
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 3
Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions
I. Life before 6/28/10 Part 1 - The Bilski ApplicationA. The Invention and Claim 1 B. What Happened (and Didn’t Happen) at the PTO
II. Life before 6/28/10 Part 2– Judicial DecisionsA. Recent Life: Benson-Flook-Diehr (Sup.Ct. 1972-78-81), Chakrabarty (Sup. Ct. 1980), State
Street (Fed. Cir. 1998), Metabolite (Sup. Ct. 2006, Breyer’s dissent from DIG) B. Ancient Life: Statutory language from 1623 to 1952 (or 1999); the disfavored status of
processes; O’Reilly v. Morse; business method patents’ long history of dissing dictaC. The Federal Circuit’s En Banc Decision (Michel’s Majority, Dyk’s Concurrence, Dissents by
Newman, Mayer and Rader) III. Life on 6/28/10 -The Supreme Court’s [Non]Decision
A. The Kennedy Majority, The Kennedy Plurality, What Scalia Could Not Agree WithKennedy’s Message: The Machine-or-Transformation Test is a fine test, but not
the only test, and please don’t ask us what the other tests are or what would make a good test. B. The Stevens Minority concurring in the judgment; The Breyer Concurrence, What Scalia
Could Agree WithIV. Life After 6/28/10 Part 1 - The PTO’s Response
The 7/27/10 Interim Guidance, a supplement to the August 2009 Interim InstructionsV. Life After 6/28/10 Part 2 - The Buzz, and What It All Means
NB: Bilski lost in the PTO, the Federal Circuit, and the Supreme Court
Outline. Page 8-1.
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 4
Preliminary Questions
• Can [clever, persevering, lucky] people get patents on computer-related inventions*?
• Has the Supreme Court’s decision in Bilski v. Kappos changed the answer? – As a matter of law? – As a matter of lore?
• What’s happening?
• But first: who are YOU? * POCRI is nicer than CRP
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 5
1 2 3 4
0% 0%0%0%
15
0 of 31
1. Prosecution2. Litigation3. Licensing /
Transactional Work
4. None of the above / Do not work with patents
Does your work involve PATENT: (Please pick just one, on whatever basis you like)
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 6
Results of Last Year’s Surveys -Audience
4/5 practiced law full time
1/4 were registered to practice before the PTO (whether as attorneys or agents)
Slightly more than 2/3 were lawyers who were not registered with the PTO
3:2 was the ratio of those whose job did : did not involve patents
About 1/4 had written a patent applicationAbout 1/10 were inventors on a patent application
A little less than 1/4 had never looked at any patents
A little more than 1/4 had looked at many patents (>100)
More than 2/3 were comfortable with the term PRIOR ART
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 7
1 2 3
0% 0%0%
15
0 of 30
1. Yes
2. No, but I looked at the materials
3. No
Did you hear my talk last year?
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 8
Patent Law by the Numbers:Are you familiar with 101, 102, 103 and 112?
1 2
0%0%
15
0 of 31
1. Yes
2. No
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 9
Guide to the Numbers101: Patentable Subject Matter (and other things)
102: “Novelty and Loss of Right.” Defines categories of PRIOR ART.
Rejections under 102 are based on a SINGLE piece of prior art.
103: Obviousness.Rejections under 103 are based on 2+
pieces of prior art.
112: “Specification”: Requirement to describe and ENABLE [the making and using of] the claimed inventions (and other things)
Quotation Marks are used because those very words are in the provision’s title in 35 USC.
“NEW” – a word in 101 – means novel AND non-obvious
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 10
About 2/3 had heard of Bilski already. Of those:
about 1/3 of those had an opinion about the case, AND
almost 3/5 believed there was (probably/absolutely) invalidating prior art to the Bilski claims
Results of Last Year’s Survey: Bilski 1
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 11
Results of Last Year’s Survey: Bilski 2
Oct. 29, 2009 Patenting Software and Business Methods - RJMorris
25
SHOULD this invention be patentable?
1 2 3 4
38%
7%
20%
35%
Ignore the law as it is, and assume Bilski's claims are valid over the prior art and are fully enabled.
1. Yes2. No3. No opinion4. I can’t answer
because the assumptions are too unbelievable.
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 12
1 2 3
0% 0%0%
15
0 of 30
Is your understanding of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bilski v. Kappos:
1. Firsthand: I looked at / read / skimmed / all or some of it.
2. Secondhand: I read or heard about it on blogs, news reports, talks, etc.
3. Nohand (no knowledge)
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 13
1 2 3
0% 0%0%
15
0 of 30
Even if you answered Nohand, you can answer this: After the Supreme Court’s decision, are the
chances of the PTO issuing POCRIs:
1. MORE likely
2. LESS likely
3. AS likely as before
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 14
1 2 3
0% 0%0%
15
0 of 30
If you answered 1 or 2, is that because
1. The 101 Test is easier/harder
2. COMPACT PROSECUTION: The PTO will look for prior art and consider enablement and not rely exclusively on 101
3. Other(if you choose OTHER,
let’s talk!)
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 15
Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions – Part I
II. Life before 6/28/10 Part 2– Judicial DecisionsA. Recent Life: Benson-Flook-Diehr (Sup.Ct. 1972-78-81), Chakrabarty (Sup. Ct. 1980), State
Street (Fed. Cir. 1998), Metabolite (Sup. Ct. 2006, Breyer’s dissent from DIG) B. Ancient Life: Statutory language from 1623 to 1952 (or 1999); the disfavored status of
processes; O’Reilly v. Morse; business method patents’ long history of dissing dictaC. The Federal Circuit’s En Banc Decision (Michel’s Majority, Dyk’s Concurrence, Dissents by
Newman, Mayer and Rader) III. Life on 6/28/10 -The Supreme Court’s [Non]Decision
A. The Kennedy Majority, The Kennedy Plurality, What Scalia Could Not Agree WithKennedy’s Message: The Machine-or-Transformation Test is a fine test, but not
the only test, and please don’t ask us what the other tests are or what would make a good test. B. The Stevens Minority concurring in the judgment; The Breyer Concurrence, What Scalia
Could Agree WithIV. Life After 6/28/10 Part 1 - The PTO’s Response
The 7/27/10 Interim Guidance, a supplement to the August 2009 Interim InstructionsV. Life After 6/28/10 Part 2 - The Buzz, and What It All Means
Outline. Page 8-1.
I. Life before 6/28/10 Part 1 - The Bilski ApplicationA. The Invention and Claim 1 B. What Happened (and Didn’t Happen) at the PTO
NB: Bilski lost in the PTO, the Federal Circuit, and the Supreme Court.
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 16
Dates – Recent PastOctober 30, 2008: The Federal Circuit decides In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (en banc) October 29, 2009: ICLE IT Meeting
November 9, 2009: The Supreme Court hears oral argument in Bilski v. Kappos
June 28, 2010: The Supreme Court decides Bilski v. Kappos
July 27, 2010: The PTO issues its Interim Guidance
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 17
Upcoming Dates
Tomorrow, 9/23/10: PTO’s Annual Business Methods Partnership Meetinghttp://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/methods/bm_partnetship_2010.jsp
Monday, 9/27/10: Last day for comments to the Interim Guidance
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 18
Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions – Part I
II. Life before 6/28/10 Part 2– Judicial DecisionsA. Recent Life: Benson-Flook-Diehr (Sup.Ct. 1972-78-81), Chakrabarty (Sup. Ct. 1980), State
Street (Fed. Cir. 1998), Metabolite (Sup. Ct. 2006, Breyer’s dissent from DIG) B. Ancient Life: Statutory language from 1623 to 1952 (or 1999); the disfavored status of
processes; O’Reilly v. Morse; business method patents’ long history of dissing dictaC. The Federal Circuit’s En Banc Decision (Michel’s Majority, Dyk’s Concurrence, Dissents by
Newman, Mayer and Rader) III. Life on 6/28/10 -The Supreme Court’s [Non]Decision
A. The Kennedy Majority, The Kennedy Plurality, What Scalia Could Not Agree WithKennedy’s Message: The Machine-or-Transformation Test is a fine test, but not
the only test, and please don’t ask us what the other tests are or what would make a good test. B. The Stevens Minority concurring in the judgment; The Breyer Concurrence, What Scalia
Could Agree WithIV. Life After 6/28/10 Part 1 - The PTO’s Response
The 7/27/10 Interim Guidance, a supplement to the August 2009 Interim InstructionsV. Life After 6/28/10 Part 2 - The Buzz, and What It All Means
Outline. Page 8-1.
I. Life before 6/28/10 Part 1 - The Bilski ApplicationA. The Invention and Claim 1 B. What Happened (and Didn’t Happen) at the PTO
NB: Bilski lost in the PTO, the Federal Circuit, and the Supreme Court.
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 19
Claim 1 of the Bilski Application
A method for managing the consumption risk costs of a commodity sold by a commodity provider at a fixed price
comprising the steps of:(a) initiating a series of transactions
between said commodity provider and consumers of said commodity
wherein said consumers purchase said commodity at a fixed rate based upon historical averages,
said fixed rate corresponding to a risk position of said consumer;
(b) identifying market participants for said commodity
having a counter-risk position to said consumers; and
(c) initiating a series of transactions between
said commodity provider and said market participants
at a second fixed rate such that said series
of market participant transactions balances the risk position of said series
of consumer transactions.
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 20
The Bilski Application
Original specification and the other claims: http://www.patentlyo.com/bilskiapplication.pdf
(Dennis Crouch (PatentlyO) in August 2009:http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/08/bilskis-patent-application.html
Crouch notes that the application is in the parties’ Appendix to the Federal Circuit appeal.
Original Application: 8 claims
Final rejection (BPAI: 2006 Pat App Lexis 51)11 claims
Basis of rejection: 101 ONLY
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 21
Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions – Part I
I. Life before 6/28/10 Part 1 - The Bilski Application
A. The Invention and Claim 1
B. What Happened (and Didn’t Happen) at the PTO
Outline. Page 8-1.
BILSKI LOST.
101 probably was the ONLY basis for rejection ever.
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 22
Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions – Part III. Life before 6/28/10 Part 1 - The Bilski Application
A. The Invention and Claim 1 B. What Happened (and Didn’t Happen) at the PTO
III. Life on 6/28/10 -The Supreme Court’s [Non]Decision A. The Kennedy Majority, The Kennedy Plurality, What Scalia Could Not Agree With
Kennedy’s Message: The Machine-or-Transformation Test is a fine test, but not the only test, and please don’t ask us what the other tests are or what would make a good test.
B. The Stevens Minority concurring in the judgment; The Breyer Concurrence, What Scalia Could Agree With
IV. Life After 6/28/10 Part 1 - The PTO’s ResponseThe 7/27/10 Interim Guidance, a supplement to the August 2009 Interim Instructions
V. Life After 6/28/10 Part 2 - The Buzz, and What It All Means
NB: Bilski lost in the PTO, the Federal Circuit, and the Supreme CourtOutline. Page 8-1.
II. Life before 6/28/10 Part 2– Judicial DecisionsA. Recent Life: Benson-Flook-Diehr (Sup.Ct. 1972-78-81), Chakrabarty (Sup. Ct. 1980), State
Street (Fed. Cir. 1998), Metabolite (Sup. Ct. 2006, Breyer’s dissent from DIG) B. Ancient Life: Statutory language from 1623 to 1952 (or 1999); the disfavored status of
processes; O’Reilly v. Morse; business method patents’ long history of dissing dictaC. The Federal Circuit’s En Banc Decision (Michel’s Majority, Dyk’s Concurrence, Dissents by
Newman, Mayer and Rader
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 23
Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions – Part II
Outline. Page 8-1.
II. Life before 6/28/10 Part 2– Judicial DecisionsA. Recent Life: Benson-Flook-Diehr (Sup.Ct. 1972-78-81), Chakrabarty (Sup. Ct. 1980), State
Street (Fed. Cir. 1998), Metabolite (Sup. Ct. 2006, Breyer’s dissent from DIG) B. Ancient Life: Statutory language from 1623 to 1952 (or 1999); the disfavored status of
processes; O’Reilly v. Morse; business method patents’ long history of dissing dictaC. The Federal Circuit’s En Banc Decision (Michel’s Majority, Dyk’s Concurrence, Dissents by
Newman, Mayer and Rader
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 24
Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions – Part II-A
Outline. Page 8-1II-A.
II. Life before 6/28/10 Part 2– Judicial DecisionsA. Recent Life: Benson-Flook-Diehr (Sup.Ct. 1972-78-81), Chakrabarty (Sup. Ct. 1980),
State Street (Fed. Cir. 1998), Metabolite (Sup. Ct. 2006, Breyer’s dissent from DIG)
BENSON – binary to decimal conversion. Applicant LOST. Anti-PAT: Majority: Stevens, Bennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell. Pro-PAT: Dissent: Stewart, Burger, Rehnquist.
FLOOK –METHOD for calculating an alarm limit (temperature, most often) in catalytic conversion. Applicant LOST. Anti-PAT: Majority: Stevens, Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, PowellPro-PAT: Dissent: Stewart, Burger, Rehnquist.
DIEHR – very similar invention to Flook’s. Applicant WON. Anti-PAT: Dissent: Stevens, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun Pro-PAT: Majority: Rehnquist, Burger, Stewart, White, Powell
CHAKRABARTY – engineered oil-eating bacteria. Applicant WON. Anti-PAT: Dissent: Brennan White Marshall Powell Pro-PAT: Majority: Burger Stewart Blackmun Rehnquist Stevens
72
78
80
81
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 25
Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions – Part II-A
Outline. Page 8-1II-A.
II. Life before 6/28/10 Part 2– Judicial DecisionsA. Recent Life: Benson-Flook-Diehr (Sup.Ct. 1972-78-81), Chakrabarty (Sup. Ct. 1980),
State Street (Fed. Cir. 1998), Metabolite (Sup. Ct. 2006, Breyer’s dissent from DIG)
STATE STREET (Rich, Plager, Bryson). Financial METHOD claims.
Mathematical Algorithms are OK.
BMPs are OK.
Test – citing DIEHR as interpreted by ALAPPAT (Rich) – requires a “useful,concrete and tangible result.” UCT was, per STATE STREET, the ALAPPAT court’s interpretation of “practical application” – words also not found in DIEHR.
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 26
Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions – Part II-A
II. Life before 6/28/10 Part 2– Judicial DecisionsA. Recent Life: Benson-Flook-Diehr (Sup.Ct. 1972-78-81), Chakrabarty (Sup. Ct. 1980),
State Street (Fed. Cir. 1998), Metabolite (Sup. Ct. 2006, Breyer’s dissent from DIG)
METABOLITE: Dissent does not mind that Accused Infringer Lab Corp (represented by Roberts’ firm after trial) had NEVER argued 101, not even in its petition for cert.
Dissent ignores the fact that Patent Owner won a jury trial.
Is 101a SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION provision such that it can never be waived by a litigant?
Breyer focuses on the fact that Lab Corp invoked unpatentability of ‘scientific facts’ in connection with a 112 vagueness argument.
In the petition for cert., it mentions cases like Diehr in connection with its argument about induced infringement.
Lab Corp also never argued that there was no single entity that would infringe. There were 2 steps, one performed by a lab, one by a doctor.
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 27
Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions – Part II.B
Outline. Page 8-1.
Yup. DISSING DICTA.
Those old cases relied on for the proposition that “business methods are not patentable” pretty much all end
HELD: THIS PATENT IS OBVIOUS.
II. Life before 6/28/10 Part 2– Judicial Decisions
B. Ancient Life: Statutory language from 1623 to 1952 (or 1999); the disfavored status of processes; O’Reilly v. Morse; business method patents’ long history of dissing dicta
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 28
Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions – Part II.C
II. Life before 6/28/10 Part 2– Judicial Decisions
C. The Federal Circuit’s En Banc Decision (Michel’s Majority, Dyk’s Concurrence, Dissents by Newman, Mayer and Rader
Last year many of you said your own opinion was closest to dissenting Judge Newman’s.
This year Justice Stevens’ opinion was closest to concurring Judge Dyk’s.
Oct. 29, 2009 Patenting Software and Business Methods - RJMorris
23
Whose opinion in In re Bilski is closest to your own?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6%8%
19%
47%
4%
11%
6%
1. Majority (Michel)
2. Concurrence (DYK, joined by LINN) : "organizing human activity“ is unpatentable under 101
3. Dissent by Newman
4. Dissent by Mayer: overrule State Street and AT&T
5. Dissent by Rader
6. None
7. No opinion
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 29
Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions – Part II.C
BILSKI (FED CIR): The Machine or Transformation Test is the SOLE test for patentability of method claims under 101:
The Supreme Court, however, 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.
See Benson, 409 U.S. at 70 ("Transformation and reduction of an article 'to a different state or thing' is the clue to the patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines."); Diehr, 450 U.S. at 192 (holding that use of mathematical formula in process "transforming or reducing an article to a different state or thing" constitutes patent-eligible subject matter) 545 F.3d at 954
So that means you can get claims to a method if you are also getting claims to a machine anyway.
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 30
Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions – Part II.C
BILSKI (FED CIR): Majority also rejected:
- Freeman-Walter-Abele
- “Useful, concrete and tangible result” of State Street/Alappat,
- categorical exclusions and
- requirement of physical steps (Comiskey, as misinterpreted…)
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 31
Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions – Part II.C
II. Life before 6/28/10 Part 2– Judicial Decisions
C. The Federal Circuit’s En Banc Decision (Michel’s Majority, Dyk’s Concurrence, Dissents by Newman, Mayer and Rader
Only Newman wanted the PTO to go and examine the claims since everyone was dancing around the fact that claim 1 at least was OBVIOUS.
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 32
Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions – Part III
Outline. Page 8-1.
III. Life on 6/28/10 -The Supreme Court’s [Non]Decision A. The Kennedy Majority, The Kennedy Plurality, What Scalia Could Not Agree With
Kennedy’s Message: The Machine-or-Transformation Test is a fine test, but not the only test, and please don’t ask us what the other tests are or what would make a good test.
B. The Stevens Minority concurring in the judgment; The Breyer Concurrence, What Scalia Could Agree With
Scalia didn’t write an opinion.
Scalia did not join IIB2 and IIC2 of the Kennedy opinion, but did join II of the Breyer opinion.
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 33
Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions – Part III.A.1
Outline. Page 8-1.
III. Life on 6/28/10 -The Supreme Court’s [Non]Decision A. The Kennedy Majority, The Kennedy Plurality, What Scalia Could Not Agree With
Kennedy’s Message: The Machine-or-Transformation Test is a fine test, but not the only test, and please don’t ask us what the other tests are or what would make a good test.
Majority: Machine or Transformation Test is an OK test but not the SOLE Test
The useful-concrete-tangible test Judge Rich made up in State Street is NG.
We’re not ready to say that ALL business methods are unpatentable.
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 34
Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions – Part III.A.2
III. Life on 6/28/10 -The Supreme Court’s [Non]Decision A. The Kennedy Majority, The Kennedy Plurality, What Scalia Could Not Agree With
Kennedy’s Message: The Machine-or-Transformation Test is a fine test, but not the only test, and please don’t ask us what the other tests are or what would make a good test.
IIB2 and IIC2 – Scalia did not join. Why not? What are they about?
IIB2: M/T is sort of an industrial age test and we’re post-industrial
IIC2: Judge Dyk’s logic (and thus Justice Stevens’) isn’t so post-industrial, either.
Judge Kennedy is concerned about the future (PROGRESS?!) and Scalia is not?
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 35
III. Life on 6/28/10 -The Supreme Court’s [Non]Decision B. The Stevens Minority concurring in the judgment; The Breyer Concurrence, What Scalia
Could Agree With
Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions – Part III.B.1
Outline. Page 8-1.
STEVENS (joined by GINSBURG, BREYER and SOTOMAYOR):
I sort of concede that all the law about BMPs being unpatentable is dicta, but then I forget.
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 36
III. Life on 6/28/10 -The Supreme Court’s [Non]Decision B. The Stevens Minority concurring in the judgment; The Breyer Concurrence, What Scalia
Could Agree With
Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions – Part III.B.1
Although courts occasionally struggled with defining what was a patentable "art" during those 160 years [1790-1952], they consistently rejected patents on methods of doing business. The rationales for those decisions sometimes varied. But there was an overarching theme, at least in dicta: Business methods are not patentable arts. [String cite.]
STEVENS, J. concurring in the judgment. 130 S.Ct. 3218, 3245-6.
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 37
III. Life on 6/28/10 -The Supreme Court’s [Non]Decision B. The Stevens Minority concurring in the judgment; The Breyer Concurrence, What Scalia
Could Agree With
Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions – Part III.B.2
Breyer’s Concurrence: Part II is a review of jurisprudence on
1. 1012. Diehr and the CLUE (M/T)3. THIS Court never said SOLE, and4. Useful, concrete, tangible is NG.
The purpose of part II, per part I, is to show how much everyone on the Court agrees.Scalia might agree with that that, but Part begins “I agree with Justice Stevens…that BMPs are not patentable … and join him in full.”
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 38
Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions – Part IV
Outline. Page 8-1.
IV. Life After 6/28/10 Part 1 - The PTO’s ResponseThe 7/27/10 Interim Guidance, a supplement to the August 2009 Interim Instructions
The 7/27 Interim Guidance. We have until 9/27 to comment. Go ahead!
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 39
Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions – Part V - 1
Outline. Page 8-1.
V. Life After 6/28/10 Part 2 - The Buzz, and What It All Means
Claim in such a way as to pass the machine or transformation test.
If you can’t, have a practical application for your abstract idea. (Like you could enable someone to use the abstract idea WITHOUT a practical application?)
Expect (I hope? In my dreams?) that any 101 rejection will be accompanied by 102/103/112 rejections. Meet those and – I like to think– the 101 arguments should disappear.
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 40
Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions – Part V - 2
WHAT I HOPE:
The PTO will prevent any pure 101 case from reaching the courts ever again in my lifetime...
APPLICATIONS: Every final with a 101 rejection will also have a 102/103/112 rejection.
INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION: If an ACCUSED INFRINGER raises 101 as a defense, and there is a ruling on that issue alone, the PTO will find prior art and commence a reexamination sua sponte.
WHY? 102, 103 and 112 adapt to new technology, innovation, etc. Applying them requires hard work, not handwaving and philosophical posturing.
THEY are the reason we have, need, and love PATENTS and the PATENT SYSTEM. We (the people) want to reward those who come up with something NEW as long as they TEACH us.
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 41
Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions – Part V - 3
WHY? 102, 103 and 112 adapt to new technology, innovation, etc. Applying them requires hard work, not handwaving and philosophical posturing.
THEY are the reason we have, need, and love PATENTS and the PATENT SYSTEM. We (the people) want to reward those who come up with something NEW as long as they TEACH us.
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 42
PTO’s RESPONSE
• 7/27/10 Memorandum, 75 FR 43922 (request for comments, due 9/27/10)
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 43
PTO’s RESPONSE -1Factors Weighing Toward Eligibility• Recitation of a machine or transformation (either express or inherent). [AND]
o Machine or transformation is particular.o Machine or transformation meaningfully limits the execution of the steps.o Machine implements the claimed steps.o The article being transformed is particular.o The article undergoes a change in state or thing (e.g., objectively different
function or use).o The article being transformed is an object or substance.
• The claim is directed toward applying a law of nature. [BUT]o Law of nature is practically applied.o The application of the law of nature meaningfully limits the execution of the
steps.• The claim is more than a mere statement of a concept. [AND]
o The claim describes a particular solution to a problem to be solved.o The claim implements a concept in some tangible way.o The performance of the steps is observable and verifiable.
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 44
PTO’s RESPONSE-2
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 45
PTO’s RESPONSE-3Factors Weighing Against Eligibility:
***• The claim is a mere statement of a general concept (see
notes below for examples).o Use of the concept, as expressed in the method, would
effectively grant a monopoly over the concept.o Both known and unknown uses of the concept are
covered, and can be performed through any existing or future-devised machinery, or even without any apparatus.
o The claim only states a problem to be solved.o The general concept is disembodied.o The mechanism(s) by which the steps are implemented
is subjective or imperceptible.
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 46
Ferguson – Mentioned in Interim GuidanceFiling date: 9/1/99Claim 1: 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.
See In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2009) , cert. denied 6/29/10.
Is 101 the obvious problem with this claim?
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 47
Answers to Preliminary Questions
• Can [clever, persevering, lucky] people get patents on computer-related inventions*? Yup.
• Has the Supreme Court’s decision in Bilski v. Kappos changed the answer? Hmmm.– As a matter of law? Sort of.– As a matter of lore? Maybe a lot. Maybe
not.
• What’s happening? Not what should happen. Yet.
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 48
REWARDFor a few years, I’ve been offering a reward to anyone who can show me a complete patent application – not just a claim, not just hype, not just a law school hypothetical –
1.with a CLAIM are drawn to an abstract idea or a law of nature or a ‘mere’ concept
BUT2.whose SPECIFICATION fully enables someone to
MAKE AND USE this claimed invention AND 3.for which there is NO invalidating prior art.
A. The claim has been drafted by an expert prosecutor thoroughly aware of KSR and the closest prior art
B. A reasonable search by a motivated searcher thoroughly aware of KSR has found nothing.
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 49
REWARD - 2
If I find such an application or even a close case, I’ll discuss it on my blog: http://myunpublisheworks.blogspot.com.
Compare my search to the PTO’s: In the Request for Comments, the PTO is only asking people to submit CLAIMS. 75 FR at 43923.
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 50
The LAWPage 6-5 to 6-6
The Constitution:ARTICLE I. Section 8.
The Congress shall have Power *** [clause 8] To promote the Progress of
Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to
Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
Writings and Discoveries.
Patent Law
Was this word INTENDED to exclude some INVENTIONS?
Sept. 22, 2010 Patenting Computer-Related Inventions - RJMorris 51
The LAW
35 USC 101. Inventions patentable.Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,
or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Were these words INTENDED to exclude some INVENTIONS?
They have been around in patent statutes since ~1623.