January 29, 2022

Volume XII, Number 29

Advertisement
Advertisement

January 28, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 27, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 26, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Federal Circuit Finds Patent Claiming Software-Related Invention is Patentable

For the first time since the Supreme Court’s Alice Corp.  v. CLS Bank Int’l decision this past summer, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has found that a patent claiming a software-related invention was patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (with Judge Chen writing the majority opinion).  DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22902 at *1 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 5, 2014) (available at http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/13-1505.Opinion.12-3-2014.1.PDF).  The Federal Circuit affirmed the Eastern District of Texas’s denial of defendant-appellant’s motion for JMOL on invalidity of  United States Patent No. 7,818,399 (the ‘399 patent).

The ‘399 patent is directed to systems and methods of generating a new composite web page that combines certain visual elements of a host website, along with content of various third-party merchants.  Id. at *2.  For example, as the Court explained, the new generated web page may combine the logo, background color, and fonts of the host website with certain product information from a third-party merchant.  Id.  This invention thus allows a website visitor to “be in two places at the same time,” taking the visitor to the merchant’s website while retaining the host site’s “look and feel.”  Id. at *3.

According to the Alice framework, invalidity questions under § 101 proceed under two stages.  First, the court determines whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, such as an “abstract idea.”  Id. at *21.  Second, if the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the court then determines whether the claims nevertheless amount to an “inventive concept.”  Id.

In this case, the Federal Circuit distinguished the ‘399 patent from examples of patents that have been previously invalidated under § 101, stating that “the ’399 patent’s claims do not … recite a commonplace business method aimed at processing business information, applying a known business process to the particular technological environment of the Internet, or creating or altering contractual relations using generic computer functions and conventional network operations, such as the claims inAlice, Ultramercial, buySAFE, Accenture, and Bancorp.”  Id. at *32.  Here, the Court found that the claims of the ‘399 patent were “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks,” and noted that the claims specified more than the “routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.”  Id. at *26, *30.  At the same time, the Court was careful to note that not all claims purporting to address “Internet-centric” problems are patent-eligible, especially if they only claim the use of the internet to perform an abstract business practice.  Id. at *29-30.

The Federal Circuit also employed an interesting analysis on how the patented concept in this case was characterized, listing several different characterizations from the defendant-appellant and the dissent.  Id.at *25-26 (“making two web pages look the same,” “syndicated commerce on the computer using the Internet,” “making two e-commerce web pages look alike by using licensed trademarks, logos, color schemes and layouts[,]” …and the “goal ‘that an online merchant’s sales can be increased if two web pages have the same ‘look and feel.’”).  Even considering these multiple interpretations on the patented idea, the Court said that “under any of these characterizations of the abstract idea, the ‘399 patent’s claims satisfy Mayo/Alice step two [as having an inventive concept].”  Id. at *26. Stay tuned for an article coming soon that goes in-depth on the discretion federal courts have in determining whether the claims are directed to an “abstract idea,” and just how important this determination has become.

©1994-2022 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume IV, Number 344
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Matthew A. Karambelas Associate Boston Strategic IP Monetization & Licensing Federal Circuit Appeals International Trade Commission Patent Litigation
Associate

Matthew practices with Mintz's Intellectual Property Litigation group, specializing in patent litigation at the International Trade Commission, United States District Courts, and United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Matthew’s experience includes litigating cases all the way through trial and appeals, including several ITC Investigations. Matthew’s clients are focused on technologies ranging from high tech and software to life sciences and medical products.

During law school, Matthew served a judicial intern for the Hon. Dennis J. Curran of the Massachusetts...

617-348-1831
Sean M. Casey, Technology Specialist, Computer Science, Mintz Law Firm
Technical Adviser

Sean applies his background in computer science and software development to his work as a Technical Advisor. He has significant experience with distributed systems designed to find radio based targets with direction finding and geolocation techniques and with low-level hardware devices and wireless communication protocols. He is a Registered Patent Agent with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

617.348.4738
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement