35 U.S.C. §101 November 2, 2015 Stephen G. Kunin Michael L. Kiklis Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt,

THE SUPREME COURT’S HISTORICAL TREATMENT OF PATENT LAW 2 From the book, The Supreme Court on Patent Law by Michael L. Kiklis published by Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. Copyright © 2015 CCH Incorporated. All rights reserved.

THE SUPREME COURT’S HISTORICAL TREATMENT OF PATENT LAW 3 From the book, The Supreme Court on Patent Law by Michael L. Kiklis published by Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. Copyright © 2015 CCH Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Patentable Subject Matter 4

PATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER  35 U.S.C. § 101: 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.  35 U.S.C. § 100(b): The term “process” means process, art or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material.  Judicially created exceptions: “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Diehr (S. Ct. 1981) 7 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

PATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER  Le Roy v. Tatham (1852) Principles are not patent-eligible:  “It is admitted, that a principle is not patentable. A principle, in the abstract, is a fundamental truth; an original cause; a motive; these cannot be patented, as no one can claim in either of them an exclusive right. Nor can an exclusive right exist to a new power, should one be discovered in addition to those already known.” Need a practical application for patent eligibility:  “A new property discovered in matter, when practically applied... is patentable.” 8 From the book, The Supreme Court on Patent Law by Michael L. Kiklis published by Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. Copyright © 2014 CCH Incorporated. All rights reserved.

PATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER  Cochrane v. Deener (1876) Definition of process includes transformation:  “A process is a mode of treatment of certain materials to produce a given result. It is an act, or a series of acts, performed upon the subject-matter to be transformed and reduced to a different state or thing. If new and useful, it is just as patentable as is a piece of machinery. In the language of the patent law, it is an art. The machinery pointed out as suitable to perform the process may or may not be new or patentable; whilst the process itself may be altogether new, and produce an entirely new result.” 9 From the book, The Supreme Court on Patent Law by Michael L. Kiklis published by Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. Copyright © 2014 CCH Incorporated. All rights reserved.

PATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER  Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford (1909) Definition of process includes machines:  “We therefore reach the conclusion that an invention or discovery of a process or method involving mechanical operations, and producing a new and useful result, may be within the protection of the Federal statute, and entitle the inventor to a patent for his discovery.” 10 From the book, The Supreme Court on Patent Law by Michael L. Kiklis published by Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. Copyright © 2014 CCH Incorporated. All rights reserved.

PATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER  Recently active area of law Alice v. CLS Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs. Inc. Bilski v. Kappos  Lessons from Supreme Court Proactive Court Little deference to the U.S. Government’s position or USPTO’s practice Demonstrates a trend that § 101 should be construed narrowly From the book, The Supreme Court on Patent Law by Michael L. Kiklis published by Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. Copyright © 2014 CCH Incorporated. All rights reserved. 11

PATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER  Trilogy of Supreme Court cases: Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972) Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978) Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) 12 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

GOTTSCHALK V. BENSON (S. CT. 1972)  Binary Coded Decimals (BCD) to pure binary conversion process  Abstract: “Here the ‘process’ claim is so abstract and sweeping as to cover both known and unknown uses of the BCD to pure binary conversion.”  The practical effect of patenting the claimed BCD to binary conversion system would be to patent an idea  Congress should decide whether computer programs are patentable 13 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

PARKER V. FLOOK (S. CT. 1978)  Method of updating alarm limits  The only difference between conventional methods and that described in the patent application was the inclusion of a mathematical formula  Point-of-novelty test: “Respondent’s process is unpatentable under § 101, not because it contains a mathematical algorithm as one component, but because once that algorithm is assumed to be within the prior art, the application, considered as a whole, contains no patentable invention.” 14 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

DIAMOND V. DIEHR (S. CT. 1981)  Process for molding rubber “We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula. We recognize, of course, that when a claim recites a mathematical formula (or scientific principle or phenomenon of nature), an inquiry must be made into whether the claim is seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract.”  Review claim as a whole, no dissection: “[W]hen a claim containing a mathematical formula implements or applies that formula in a structure or process which, when considered as a whole, is performing a function which the patent laws were designed to protect (e.g., transforming or reducing an article to a different state or thing), then the claim satisfies the requirements of § 101.”  Reject point-of-novelty test: “The ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” 15 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

BILSKI V. KAPPOS (S. CT. 2010)  The Machine-or-Transformation Test: “a claimed process is patent eligible if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing.”  M-O-T is not the sole test for determining patent eligibility, instead it is "a useful and important clue, an investigative tool.”  Abstract Idea Analysis : Preemption: “The concept of hedging... is an unpatentable abstract idea.... Allowing [Bilski] to patent risk hedging would preempt use of this approach in all fields, and would effectively grant a monopoly over an abstract idea.” Limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token post-solution components is not enough  Back to the Wild West: “And nothing in today’s opinion should be read as endorsing interpretations of §101 that the [Fed. Cir.] has used in the past.” 16 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES V. PROMETHEUS LABS, INC. (S. CT. 2012)  Appeal following post-Bilski GVR  Claims directed to a drug administration process  “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent- eligible application of such law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.’”  Patents should not be upheld where the claim too broadly preempts the use of the natural law  Court dissected the claim elements: “To put the matter more succinctly, the claims inform a relevant audience about certain laws of nature; any additional steps consist of well-understood, routine, conventional activity already engaged in by the scientific community” 17 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES V. PROMETHEUS LABS, INC. (CONT’D)  “Other cases offer further support for the view that simply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality, to laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas cannot make those laws, phenomena, and ideas patentable.”  Point-of-novelty test? “We recognize that, in evaluating the significance of additional steps, the §101 patent-eligibility inquiry and, say, the §102 novelty inquiry might sometimes overlap. But that need not always be so.”  The M-O-T test does not trump the law of nature exclusion  The proper role of §101: The Court rejected the Government’s argument that virtually any step beyond the law of nature should render the claim patent-eligible under §101, because §§102, 103, and 112 are sufficient to perform the screening function 18 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

CLS BANK V. ALICE CORP. (FED. CIR. 2013, EN BANC)  Case was heard en banc in an attempt to address uncertainty  Questions presented: 1) What test should the court adopt to determine whether a computer-implemented invention is a patent ineligible “abstract idea”; and when, if ever, does the presence of a computer in a claim lend patent eligibility to an otherwise patent-ineligible idea? 2) In assessing patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of a computer-implemented invention, should it matter whether the invention is claimed as a method, system, or storage medium; and should such claims at times be considered equivalent for § 101 purposes? 19 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

CLS BANK V. ALICE CORP. (FED. CIR. 2013, EN BANC) (CONT’D)  Fed. Cir. issued one-paragraph per curiam opinion Majority found method and computer-readable medium claims patent ineligible Even split on the patent eligibility of system claims Result: patent-ineligibility affirmance of lower court’s decision No rationale was provided 20 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

CLS BANK V. ALICE CORP. (FED. CIR. 2013, EN BANC) (CONT’D)  Five non-precedential opinions were issued that provide insight into thinking of majority of Judges  Agreement between Judges (Lourie and Rader opinions): Mayo decision does not resurrect the point-of-novelty test Broad claims do not necessarily fail the §101 inquiry District Court §101 challenges must overcome clear-and- convincing evidentiary standard Proper §101 inquiry under Mayo involves determination of whether claim includes meaningful limitations beyond an abstract idea instead of novelty assessment  No agreement on what makes a limitation meaningful 21 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

ALICE V. CLS (S. CT. 2014)  Issue: Patentable subject matter for computer- related inventions under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  Decided: June 19. Unanimous decision.  Invention: Mitigating settlement risk  High level points: Court dissected claims and considered them as an ordered whole System and C-R medium claims fell with method claims Point-of-novelty test? 22 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

ALICE V. CLS (CONT’D)  Court’s concern is with preemption  Must distinguish between the “building blocks of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something more” rendering them patent eligible. 23 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

ALICE V. CLS (CONT’D)  Used Mayo framework: 1.Determine whether claims are directed to a law of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract idea; 2.If so, then ask “What else is there in the claims before us?”  Consider elements of claim individually and as an ordered combination to determine if the additional elements “transform the... claim into patent-eligible” subject matter.  This is a “search for an ‘inventive concept’... An element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon” the abstract idea. 24 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

ALICE V. CLS (CONT’D)  Step one: The Court refers to two books and states:  The claims are drawn to the “abstract idea” of intermediated settlement, which is a fundamental concept  It “is a building block of the modern economy” Compared to Bilski:  Like Bilski’s hedging, intermediated settlement is an abstract idea.  “In any event, we need not labor to delimit the precise contours of the ‘abstract ideas’ category in this case. It is enough to recognize that there is no meaningful distinction between the concept of risk hedging in Bilski and the concept of intermediated settlement at issue here.” No clear guidance 25 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

ALICE V. CLS (CONT’D)  Step two: A claim that recites an abstract idea must include “additional features” to ensure “that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].” Per Mayo, need more than “apply it.” The computer implementation must supply the necessary “inventive concept” – what does “inventive concept” mean? 26 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

ALICE V. CLS (CONT’D)  Step two (cont’d): Mere recitation of a generic computer is not enough Nor is limiting the claim to a technological environment “[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. They do not.” 27 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

ALICE V. CLS (CONT’D)  Step two (cont’d): The claim elements separately are “purely conventional” “In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.” Considered as an ordered combination, the claims “simply recite the concept of intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.”  They do not improve the functioning of the computer itself  “Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.”  Safe harbors? 28 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

ALICE V. CLS (CONT’D)  System and C-R Medium Claims “Petitioner conceded below that its media claims rise or fall with its method claims.” System claims  Purely functional and generic  None of the hardware recited “offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking” the method to a “particular technological environment” – implementation on a computer  “Put another way, the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance.” 29 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

ALICE V. CLS - CONCLUSIONS  Clarity?  Will the Fed. Cir. resist the point-of- novelty test and continue with its “meaningful limitations” test?  Will the PTO do the same? 30 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

DIGITECH IMAGE TECHS., LLC V. ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING, INC. (FED. CIR. JULY 11, 2014)  Holding: Claims invalid under § 101  Rationale: “Device profile” claims:  “The asserted claims are not directed to any tangible embodiment of this information (i.e., in physical memory or other medium) or claim any tangible part of the digital processing system.” Process claims:  Abstract Idea? - “The method in the '415 patent claims an abstract idea because it describes a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations and is not tied to a specific structure or machine.”  Inventive concept? - “Contrary to Digitech's argument, nothing in the claim language expressly ties the method to an image processor.” 31 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

I/P ENGINE, INC. V. AOL INC. (FED. CIR. AUG. 15, 2014)  Holding: Claims invalid under § 101  Rationale: Abstract Idea?  “The asserted claims simply describe the well-known and widely-applied concept that it is often helpful to have both content-based and collaborative information about a specific area of interest.” Inventive Concept?  “I/P Engine’s claimed system is merely an Internet iteration of the basic concept of combining content and collaborative data, relying for implementation on ‘a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.’” 32 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

PLANET BINGO, LLC. V. VKGS LLC (FED. CIR. AUG. 26, 2014)  Holding: Claims invalid under § 101  Rationale: Abstract Idea?  “[T]hese claims are directed to the abstract idea of ‘solv[ing a] tampering problem and also minimiz[ing] other security risks’ during bingo ticket purchases.” Inventive Concept?  “[T]he claims recite a program that is used for the generic functions of storing, retrieving, and verifying …. And, as was the case in Alice, ‘the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is “[p]urely conventional.'’” 33 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

BUYSAFE, INC. V. GOOGLE, INC. (FED. CIR. SEPT. 3, 2014)  Holding: Claims invalid under § 101  Rationale: Abstract Idea?  “The claims are squarely about creating a contractual relationship—a ‘transaction performance guaranty’—that is beyond question of ancient lineage.”  “The claims thus are directed to an abstract idea.” Inventive Concept?  “The claims' invocation of computers adds no inventive concept.” 34 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

ULTRAMERCIAL, INC. V. HULU, LLC (FED. CIR. NOV. 14, 2014)  Holding: Claims invalid under § 101  Rationale: The panel “found” an abstract idea with little analysis:  The process of receiving copyrighted media, selecting an ad, offering the media in exchange for watching the selected ad, displaying the ad, allowing the consumer access to the media, and receiving payment from the sponsor of the ad all describe an abstract idea, devoid of a concrete or tangible application. The panel performed a point-of-novelty analysis  In any event, any novelty in implementation of the idea is a factor to be considered only in the second step of the Alice analysis.  Adding routine additional steps such as updating an activity log, requiring a request from the consumer to view the ad, restrictions on public access, and use of the Internet does not transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Instead, the claimed sequence of steps comprises only “conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” which is insufficient to supply an “inventive concept.” The panel also applied the MOT test  The claims of the ’545 patent, however, are not tied to any particular novel machine or apparatus, only a general purpose computer. 35 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

ULTRAMERCIAL, INC. V. HULU, LLC (FED. CIR. NOV. 14, 2014)(MAYER CONC.)  § 101 is a threshold question that should be decided at the outset of litigation  No presumption of eligibility for § 101  Alice announced a technical arts test 36 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

DDR HOLDINGS, LLC V. HOTELS.COM, L.P. (FED. CIR. DEC. 5, 2014)  Holding: Claims valid under § 101 Affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion for JMOL of invalidity under § 101  Rationale: The panel found it difficult to determine the abstract idea:  “[I]dentifying the precise nature of the abstract idea is not as straightforward as in Alice or some of our other recent abstract idea cases.” The panel held that the claims satisfied the Mayo/Alice step two:  “[T]hese claims stand apart because they do 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. Instead, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” 37 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

BRCA1- & BRCA2-BASED HEREDITARY CANCER TEST PATENT LITIG. V. AMBRY GENETICS CORP. (FED. CIR. DEC. 17, 2014)  Holding: Claims invalid under § 101 Affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion for preliminary injunction because the claims are invalid under § 101  Rationale: The panel held that their previous 2012 opinion in Myriad already determined that the claims were directed to an abstract idea:  “Claims 7 and 8 at issue here depend from claim 1. … In our 2012 decision, we held that claim 1 was patent ineligible because it claimed an abstract mental process of 'comparing' and 'analyzing' two gene sequences.” The panel held that the claims “do not add ‘enough’ to make the claims as a whole patent-eligible”:  “Nothing is added by identifying the techniques to be used in making the comparison because those comparison techniques were the well- understood, routine, and conventional techniques that a scientist would have thought of when instructed to compare two gene sequences.” 38 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

CONTENT EXTRACTION & TRANSMISSION LLC V. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. (FED. CIR. DEC. 23, 2014)  Holding: Claims invalid under § 101  Rationale: The panel compared the claims at issue to those found invalid in Alice and held that the claims were directed to an abstract idea:  “[T]he asserted patents are drawn to the abstract idea of 1) collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and 3) storing that recognized data in a memory. The concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known.” The panel held that the claims did not contain any limitation that transformed the patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention:  “There is no ‘inventive concept’ in CET’s use of a generic scanner and computer to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities commonly used in industry.” 39 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

ALLVOICE DEVS. US, LLC V. MICROSOFT CORP. (FED. CIR. MAY 22, 2015) (UNPUBLISHED)  Holding: Claims invalid under § 101  Rationale: The panel held that the claims were not directed to any of the categories of patent eligible subject matter:  The independent claims were directed to a “speech-recognition interface”  “Here, claims 60-68 of the ‘273 Patent do not recite a process or tangible or physical object and, thus, do not fall within any of the categories of eligible subject matter.” The panel rejected the patent owner’s argument that the claims were patent eligible as “software instructions”:  “Software may be patent eligible, but when a claim is not directed towards a process, the subject matter must exist in tangible form. Here, the disputed claims merely claim software instructions without any hardware limitations.” 40 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

OIP TECHS., INC. V. AMAZON.COM, INC. (FED. CIR. JUNE 11, 2015)  Holding: Claims invalid under § 101  Rationale: The panel held that the claims were directed to an abstract idea:  “[T]he claims are directed to the concept of offer-based price optimization. … This concept of ‘offer based pricing’ is similar to other ‘fundamental economic concepts’ found to be abstract ideas by the Supreme Court and this court.” The panel held that the claims did not contain any limitation that transformed the patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention:  “Beyond the abstract idea of offer-based price optimization, the claims merely recite ‘well-understood, routine conventional activit[ies],’ either by requiring conventional computer activities or routine data-gathering steps.” 41 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. V. SEQUENOM, INC. (FED. CIR. JUNE 12, 2015)  Holding: Claims invalid under § 101  Rationale: The panel held that the claims were directed to a naturally occurring phenomenon:  “Thus, the claims at issue, as informed by the specification, are generally directed to detecting the presence of a naturally occurring thing or a natural phenomenon, cffDNA in maternal plasma or serum.” The panel held that the claims did not contain an inventive concept:  “The method at issue here amounts to a general instruction to doctors to apply routine, conventional techniques when seeking to detect cffDNA. Because the method steps were well- understood, conventional and routine, the method of detecting paternally inherited cffDNA is not new and useful.” 42 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

INTERNET PATENTS CORP. V. ACTIVE NETWORK, INC. (FED. CIR. JUNE 23, 2015)  Holding: Claims invalid under § 101  Rationale: The panel held that the claims were directed to an abstract idea:  “We agree with the district court that the character of the claimed invention is an abstract idea: the idea of retaining information in the navigation of online forms.” The panel held that the claims did not contain an inventive concept:  The panel held that all the claims “are directed to the idea itself” and do not contain any inventive concept.  The panel describes the claims as being directed to “conventional,” “well-known,” and “common” features. 43 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC V. CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA) (FED. CIR. JULY 6, 2015)  Holding: Claims of the ’137 and ’382 patents invalid under § 101  Rationale for the ’137 patent: The panel held that the claims were directed to an abstract idea:  “Here, the patent claims are directed to an abstract idea: tracking financial transactions to determine whether they exceed a pre-set spending limit (i.e., budgeting).”  “The abstract idea here is not meaningfully different from the ideas found to be abstract in other cases before the Supreme Court and our court involving methods of organizing human activity.” The panel held that the claims did not contain an inventive concept:  “The recited elements, e.g., a database, a user profile (‘a profile keyed to a user identity,’ …) and a communication medium, are all generic computer elements.”  “Instructing one to ‘apply’ an abstract idea and reciting no more than generic computer elements performing generic computer tasks does not make an abstract idea patent-eligible.” 44 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC V. CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA) (CON’T)  Rationale for the ’382 patent: The panel held that “the claim relates to customizing information based on (1) information known about the user and (2) navigation data.” The panel held that both aspects of the claims were directed to abstract ideas:  “With respect to the first aspect, … [t]his sort of information tailoring is ‘a fundamental... practice long prevalent in our system....’ Id. There is no dispute that newspaper inserts had often been tailored based on information known about the customer…. Providing this minimal tailoring … is an abstract idea.”  “With respect to the second aspect, … Intellectual Ventures did not challenge the conclusion that tailoring content based on the time of day at which the user viewed the content is within the scope of the claim limitation. Tailoring information based on the time of day of viewing is also an abstract, overly broad concept long-practiced in our society.” The panel held that the claims did not contain an inventive concept:  “Intellectual Ventures argues that claims limited to dynamic presentation of data … supplies an inventive concept. … [T]he fact that the web site returns the pre-designed ad more quickly than a newspaper could send the user a location-specific advertisement insert does not confer patent eligibility.”  “Intellectual Ventures argues that the ‘interactive interface’ is a specific application of the abstract idea that provides an inventive concept. … Rather, the ‘interactive interface’ simply describes a generic web server with attendant software, tasked with providing web pages to and communicating with the user’s computer.” 45 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

VERSATA DEV. GROUP, INC. V. SAP AM., INC. (FED. CIR. JULY 9, 2015)  Holding: Claims invalid under § 101 Affirmed the PTAB’s Final Written Decision  Rationale: The panel held that the claims were directed to an abstract idea:  “Claims 17 and 26-29 of the ’350 patent are directed to the abstract idea of determining a price, using organizational and product group hierarchies, in the same way that the claims in Alice were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and the claims in Bilski were directed to the abstract idea of risk hedging.” The panel held that the claims did not contain an inventive concept:  “[T]he function performed by the computer at each step is purely conventional.”  “For example, the limitations of claim 17 involve arranging a hierarchy of organizational and product groups, storing pricing information, retrieving applicable pricing information, sorting pricing information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information, and determining the price. All of these limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry.” 46 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

DISTRICT COURT CASES DateDistrictCase NameOutcomeProcedural Context 7/8/2014S.D.N.Y. DietGoal Innovations LLC v. Bravo Media LLC (Div. of NBC Universal Media, LLC) Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 7/16/2014D. Del.Comcast IP Holdings I, LLC v. Sprint Communs. Co. L.P.Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 8/19/2014D.N.J.Data Distrib. Techs., LLC v. Brer Affiliates, Inc.DeniedMotion to Dismiss 9/2/2014E.D. Tex.Loyalty Conversion Sys. Corp. v. Am. Airlines, Inc.Claims invalid under § 101 Judgment on the Pleadings 9/3/2014D. Del.Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Lab. Corp. of Am. HoldingsClaims invalid under § 101 Motion to Dismiss (Magistrate Judge Opinion only) 9/3/2014D. Del.Tuxis Techs., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.Claims invalid under § 101Motion to Dismiss 9/3/2014D. Del.Walker Digital, LLC v. Google, Inc.Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 9/4/2014C.D. Cal.Eclipse IP LLC v. McKinley Equip. Corp.Claims invalid under § 101Motion to Dismiss 9/5/2014 E.D. Mich. Autoform Eng'g GMBH v. Eng’g Tech. Assocs.DeniedSummary Judgment 9/11/2014M.D. Fla.Every Penny Counts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 9/18/2014D. Del.Helios Software, LLC v. Spectorsoft Corp.Claims valid under § 101Summary Judgment 9/19/2014N.D. Cal.Open Text S.A. v. Alfresco Software Ltd.Claims invalid under § 101Motion to Dismiss 47 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

DISTRICT COURT CASES DateDistrictCase NameOutcomeProcedural Context 9/22/2014C.D. Cal. McRO, Inc. v. Namco Bandai Games Am., Inc. (consolidated case combining 20 cases) and McRo, Inc. v. Valve Corp. (consolidated case combining 3 cases) Claims invalid under § 101 Judgment on the Pleadings 9/29/2014C.D. Cal.CMG Fin. Servs. v. Pac. Trust Bank, F.S.B.Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 9/29/2014N.D. Ill.Card Verification Solutions, LLC v. Citigroup Inc.DeniedMotion to Dismiss 9/30/2014N.D. Cal.Cogent Med., Inc. v. Elsevier Inc.Claims invalid under § 101Motion to Dismiss 11/3/2014C.D. Cal.Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 11/3/2014C.D. Cal.Cal. Inst. of Tech. v. Hughes Communs., Inc.Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 11/12/2014C.D. Cal.Ameranth, Inc. v. Genesis Gaming Solutions, Inc.DeniedSummary Judgment 12/15/2014D. Del. Joao Bock Transaction Sys., LLC v. Jack Henry & Assocs. Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 12/16/2014N.D. Cal.OpenTV, Inc. v. Netflix Inc. Some claims invalid under § 101 (2 patents) and denied as to other claims (1 patent) Summary Judgment 12/17/2014D. Del.IpLearn v. K12 Inc.Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 12/18/2014D. Del.Cloud Satchel, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 48 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

DISTRICT COURT CASES DateDistrictCase NameOutcomeProcedural Context 12/18/2014D. Del.Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Mfrs. & Traders Trust Co. Some claims invalid under § 101 (3 patents) and denied as to other claims (1 patent) Motion to Dismiss 12/23/2014D. UtahKomBea Corp. v. Noguar L.C.Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 12/23/2014C.D. Cal.MyMedicalRecords, Inc. v. Walgreen Co.Claims invalid under § 101 Judgment on the Pleadings 12/23/2014C.D. Cal.Morsa v. Facebook, Inc.Claims invalid under § 101 Judgment on the Pleadings 12/23/2014S.D. Tex.Fairfield Indus. v. Wireless Seismic, Inc.DeniedMotion to Dismiss 12/30/2014W.D. Tex.Morales v. Square, Inc.Claim invalid under § 101Motion to Dismiss 1/2/2015N.D. Cal.Bascom Research, LLC v. LinkedIn, Inc.Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 1/12/2015C.D. Cal.Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. Costco Wholesale Corp.Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 1/15/2015D.N.H.E. Coast Sheet Metal Fabricating Corp. v. Autodesk, Inc.Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 1/20/2015N.D. Cal.Open Text S.A. v. Box, Inc.Claims invalid under § 101 Judgment on the Pleadings 1/20/2015N.D. Cal.Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 1/21/2015E.D. Va.CertusView Techs., LLC v. S&N Locating Servs.Claims invalid under § 101Judgment on the Pleadings 49 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

DISTRICT COURT CASES DateDistrictCase NameOutcomeProcedural Context 1/27/2015D. Del.Money Suite Co. v. 21st Century Ins. & Fin. Servs.Claim invalid under § 101Motion to Dismiss 1/29/2015N.D. Ill. Vehicle Intelligence & Safety LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC Claims invalid under § 101 Judgment on the Pleadings 2/6/2015E.D. Va.In re TLI Communs. LLC Patent Litig.Claims invalid under § 101Motion to Dismiss 2/9/2015M.D. Fla.Stoneeagle Servs. v. Pay-Plus SolutionsDenied Judgment on the Pleadings 2/10/2015M.D. Fla.Enpat, Inc. v. Tenrox Inc.Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 2/11/2015C.D. Cal. Essociate, Inc. v. 4355768 Canada Inc. and Essociate, Inc. v. Clickbooth.com Claims invalid under § 101 Judgment on the Pleadings 2/13/2015E.D. Tex.Smartflash LLC v. Apple, Inc.DeniedSummary Judgment 2/18/2015 W.D. Wis. Ameritox, Ltd. v. Millennium Health, LLC Some claims invalid under § 101 (1 patent) and denied as to other claims (1 patent) Summary Judgment 2/24/2015N.D. Ill.Trading Techs. Int'l v. CQG, Inc.DeniedJ.M.O.L. 2/24/2015D. Del.Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC Some claims invalid under § 101 (1 patent) and denied as to other claims (1 patent) Summary Judgment 3/3/2015E.D. Tex.Clear with Computers, LLC v. Altec Indus.Claims invalid under § 101Motion to Dismiss 50 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

DISTRICT COURT CASES DateDistrictCase NameOutcomeProcedural Context 3/10/2015N.D. Cal.Hewlett Packard Co. v. ServiceNow, Inc.Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 3/11/2015D. Del.Tenon & Groove, LLC v. Plusgrade S.E.C.Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 3/13/2015N.D. Ill.Celsis in Vitro, Inc. v. CellzDirect, Inc. Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 3/17/2015C.D. Cal.Modern Telecom Sys. LLC v. Juno Online Servs. Denied Judgment on the Pleadings 3/18/2015D. Del.Priceplay.com v. AOL Adver., Inc. Claims invalid under § 101Motion to Dismiss 3/25/2015D. Del.Tuxis Techs., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. Claims invalid under § 101Motion to Dismiss 3/17/2015S.D. CalAdvanced Auctions LLC v. Ebay Inc. Claims invalid under § 101 Judgment on the Pleadings 3/29/2015E.D. Tex. Certified Measurement, LLC v. Centerpint Energy Houston DeniedMotion to Dismiss 3/30/2015E.D. Va.Carfax, Inc. v. Red Mt. Techs.Claims invalid under § 101Motion to Dismiss 3/31/2015D. Minn. Genetic Veterinary Scis., Inc. v. Canine EIC Genetics, LLC Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 4/6/2015N.D. Cal.OpenTV, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.Claims invalid under § 101Motion to Dismiss 4/14/2015N.D. Cal.Shortridge v. Found. Constr. Payroll Serv., LLCClaims invalid under § 101Judgment on the Pleadings 51 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

DISTRICT COURT CASES DateDistrictCase NameOutcomeProcedural Context 4/15/2015D. Del.Messaging Gateway Solutions, LLC v. Amdocs, Inc.Claims valid under § 101 Judgment on the Pleadings 4/20/2015N.D. Cal.Mobile-Plan-IT LLC v. Facebook Inc.Denied Judgment on the Pleadings 4/20/2015D.N.J. Wireless Media Innovations, LLC v. Maher Terminals, LLC Claims invalid under § 101Motion to Dismiss 4/22/2015D. Del.Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 4/24/2015D. Wisc.Ameritox, Ltd. v. Millennium Health, LLCClaims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 4/28/2015S.D.N.Y.Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 4/28/2015D. Mass.Kenexa Brassring, Inc. v. HireAbility.com, LLCDenied Judgment on the Pleadings 5/4/2015N.D. Cal.Good Tech. Corp. v. MobileIron, Inc.Denied Judgment on the Pleadings 5/7/2015N.D. Tex.Jericho Sys. Corp. v. Axiomatics, Inc.Claims invalid under § 101 Judgment on the Pleadings 5/15/2015N.D. Tex. BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC Claims invalid under § 101Motion to Dismiss 5/21/2015C.D. Cal.Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom, S.A.Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 52 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

DISTRICT COURT CASES DateDistrictCase NameOutcomeProcedural Context 5/29/2015E.D. Tex.Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Safeway, Inc.Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 6/11/2015N.D. Cal.Potter Voice Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc. Some claims invalid under § 101 and denied as to other claims Summary Judgment 6/11/2015N.D. Ill. Market Track, LLC v. Efficient Collaborative Retail Mktg., LLC Claims invalid under § 101 Judgment on the Pleadings 6/24/2015M.D. Fla.FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys.Claims invalid under § 101Motion to Dismiss 6/29/2015S.D.N.YKickstarter, Inc. v. Fan Funded, LLCClaims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 7/1/2015M.D. Fla.Stoneeagle Servs. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc.DeniedSummary Judgment 7/1/2015D.N.J.Source Search Techs., LLC v. Kayak Software Corp.Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 7/7/2015N.D. Ill.Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Linear LLCDeniedMotion to Dismiss 7/7/2015W.D. Tex.Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Directv, LLCClaims invalid under § 101Motion to Dismiss 7/9/2015D. Ore.Tranxition, Inc. v. Lenovo (United States) Inc.Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 7/9/2015W.D. Wash. Appistry, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.Claims invalid under § 101Judgment on the Pleadings 53 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

DISTRICT COURT CASES DateDistrictCase NameOutcomeProcedural Context 7/9/2015D. Del. Pragmatus Telecom, LLC v. Genesys Telecomms. Labs., Inc. Claims invalid under § 101Motion to Dismiss 7/10/2015N.D. Cal.IPLearn-Focus, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 7/10/2015N.D. Ill.Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit Auth.Claims invalid under § 101 Judgment on the Pleadings 7/14/2015E.D. Tex.Landmark Tech., LLC v. Assurant, Inc.Claims invalid under § 101 Motion to Dismiss (Magistrate Judge Order Only) 7/15/2015N.D. Cal.Netflix, Inc. v. Rovi Corp.Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 7/17/2015E.D. Va.Microstrategy Inc. v. Apttus Corp.Claims invalid under § 101Motion to Dismiss 7/20/2015Fed. Cl.Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United StatesClaims invalid under § 101 Judgment on the Pleadings 7/23/2015 W.D. Wash. Telebuyer, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 7/23/2015S.D.N.Y.Adrea, LLC v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.Claims invalid under § 101Motion for Judgment 7/27/2015E.D. Cal.Boar's Head Corp. v. DirectApps, Inc.Claims invalid under § 101Motion to Dismiss 8/3/2015W.D. Tex.Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Baxter Int'l, Inc.Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 54 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

DISTRICT COURT CASES DateDistrictCase NameOutcomeProcedural Context 8/6/2015E.D. Tex.ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.DeniedSummary Judgment 8/10/2015M.D. Fla. Joao Bock Transaction Sys., LLC v. Fid. Nat'l Info. Servs. Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 8/10/2015D. Del. Personalized Media Communs., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. Claims invalid under § 101 Judgment on the Pleadings 8/10/2015D. Del.TriPlay, Inc. v. WhatsApp Inc. Some claims invalid under § 101 and denied as to other claims Motion to Dismiss 8/19/2015E.D. Tex.Uniloc USA, Inc. v. E-Mds, Inc. Some claims invalid under § 101 and denied as to other claims Motion to Dismiss 8/19/2015E.D.N.Y.Paone v. Broadcom Corp.DeniedMotion to Dismiss 8/21/2015D. Del.Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.Claims invalid under § 101 Judgment on the Pleadings 8/21/2015D. Del.Everglades Game Techs., LLC v. Supercell, Inc.Claims invalid under § 101Motion to Dismiss 8/26/2015D.D.C.Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. v. Dickstein Shapiro LLP Claims invalid under § 101Judgment on the Pleadings 55 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

DISTRICT COURT CASES DateDistrictCase NameOutcomeProcedural Context 8/28/2015D. Mass.Exergen Corp. v. Brooklands Inc.Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 8/31/2015N.D. Cal.Klaustech, Inc. v. Admob, Inc.Denied Judgment on the Pleadings 9/2/2015D. Md.Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp.Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 9/2/2015D. Del.Novo Transforma Techs., LLC v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.Claims invalid under § 101 Judgment on the Pleadings 9/4/2015D. Mass.DataTern, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc.DeniedSummary Judgment 9/8/2015N.D. Cal.Spike v. Google Inc.Claims invalid under § 101 Judgment on the Pleadings 9/8/2015D. Del.Gammino v. AT&T Co.Claims invalid under § 101 Judgment on the Pleadings 9/8/2015D. Del.Cronos Techs., LLC v. Expedia, Inc.Denied Judgment on the Pleadings 9/10/2015D.N.J.WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Multi-Media, LLCDeniedMotion to Dismiss 9/11/2015S.D. Tex.TDE Petroleum Data Solutions, Inc. v. AKM Enter.Claims invalid under § 101Motion to Dismiss 9/15/2015D. Mass.Exergen Corp. v. Thermomedics, Inc.Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 9/17/2015S.D. Tex.Canrig Drilling Tech., Ltd. v. Trinidad Drilling L.P.DeniedJudgment on the Pleadings 56 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

DISTRICT COURT CASES DateDistrictCase NameOutcomeProcedural Context 9/21/2015E.D. Tex.eDekka LLC v. 3balls.com, Inc.Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 9/21/2015E.D. Tex.Telinit Techs., LLC v. Alteva, Inc.Claims invalid under § 101 Judgment on the Pleadings 9/23/2015D. Colo.Concaten, Inc. v. AmeriTrak Fleet Solutions, LLCClaims invalid under § 101 Judgment on the Pleadings 9/23/2015E.D. Tex. Mobile Telcoms. Techs., LLC v. Leap Wireless Int’l, Inc. Denied Judgment on the Pleadings 9/23/2015D. Del.Endo Pharms., Inc. v. Actavis Inc.Claims invalid under § 101 Motion to Dismiss (Magistrate Judge Order Only) 9/23/2015W.D. Tex.Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.Claims invalid under § 101Motion to Dismiss 9/25/2015E.D. Tex.SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google Inc.DeniedSummary Judgment 9/25/2015W.D. Pa.Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co.Claims invalid under § 101Motion to Dismiss 9/25/2015W.D. Pa.Esoterix Genetic Labs. LLC v. Qiagen Inc.Claims invalid under § 101Motion to Dismiss 9/28/2015D. Col.HealthTrio, LLC v. Aetna, Inc.Claims invalid under § 101 Judgment on the Pleadings 9/30/2015D. Del.Execware, LLC v. BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc.DeniedMotion to Dismiss 57 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

DISTRICT COURT CASES DateDistrictCase NameOutcomeProcedural Context 9/30/2015D. Del.Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Gameloft, Inc.Claims invalid under § 101 Judgment on the Pleadings Motion to Dismiss 10/1/2015E.D. Tex.Orostream LLC v. ABS-CBN Int’lClaims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 10/5/2015E.D. Tex.ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.DeniedSummary Judgment 10/6/2015N.D. Cal.Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC v. Sprint Nextel Corp.Claims invalid under § 101 Motion to Dismiss Judgment on the Pleadings 10/8/2015W.D. Tex. A PTY Ltd. v. HomeAway, Inc.; A Pty Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc.; A Pty Ltd v. Google, Inc. DeniedMotion to Dismiss 10/8/2015D. Del.CyberFone Sys., LLC v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc.Claims invalid under § 101 Judgment on the Pleadings 10/8/2015D. Del.Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Sallie Mae BankClaims invalid under § 101Motion to Dismiss 10/8/2015D. Del.YYZ, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.Claims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 10/13/2015N.D. Ill.Neochloris, Inc. v. Emerson Process Mgmt. LLLPClaims invalid under § 101Summary Judgment 58 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

PTAB § 101 CASES  SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development Group, Inc. (CBM2012-00001) Claim 17 – a method of determining a price Claim 27 – a computer-implemented method of determining a price Claims 26 and 28 – computer-readable storage media claims implementing the methods of Claims 17 and 27 Claim 29 – “apparatus” for determining a price including computer program instructions capable of performing the same method steps recited in Claim 27 PTAB analyzed all claims together 59 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

PTAB § 101 CASES  SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development Group, Inc. (CBM2012-00001) “The key question is, therefore, whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe the law of nature or abstract idea.” The abstract idea: “determining a price using organizational and product group hierarchies, which are akin to management organizational charts.” Having found an abstract idea, “we must further analyze Versata’s claims to determine whether they incorporate sufficient meaningful limitations....” 60 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

PTAB § 101 CASES  SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development Group, Inc. (CBM2012-00001) Mental steps test: “while the challenged claims are drafted to include computer hardware limitations, the underlying process... could also be performed via pen and paper.” General purpose computer: “The claimed invention... requires only routine computer hardware and programming.” Additional meaningful limitations: “the additionally claimed steps... are well-known, routine, and conventional steps.” 61 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

PTAB § 101 CASES  CRS Adv. Tech., Inc. v. Frontline Tech. Inc. (CBM2012-00005) Holding – All challenged claims (method and system) are unpatentable under § 101 “[T]he terms ‘one or more computers,’ ‘website,’ and ‘communication link’ at issue in this case do not impose meaningful limits on the challenged claims’ scope.” Compared technology limitations to those of:  SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010)  Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013)  Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, (Fed. Cir. 2012)  Bancorp Servs. v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012)  Accenture Global v. Guidewire Software, 728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) Note: PTAB did not discuss/use CLS Bank decision 62 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

PTAB § 101 CASES  Interthinx, Inc. v. CoreLogic Solutions, LLC (CBM2012-00007) Found all claims (method claims) unpatentable:  Patent Owner: Under M-O-T, “the computer plays a necessary and vital role to the development and storage of the predictive and error models.” o PTAB: “Although the preamble recites a computer implemented process, none of the claim elements, with the possible exception of the ‘storing’ limitations, specifically recites a relationship to the computer.”  Patent Owner: “[T]he claims pass the Federal Circuit’s ‘mental process test’ because they … cannot be performed entirely manually or in the human mind.” o PTAB: “However, the claims …do not tie necessarily these steps to a computer or a particular application.”  Patent Owner: “[T]he claims satisfy the “abstract idea” test for patentable subject matter because, rather than being tied preemptively to a field of use, they are narrowly tied to a specific application” o PTAB: “A claim is not patent eligible if, instead of claiming an application of an abstract idea, the claim instead is drawn to the abstract idea itself.” 63 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

PTAB § 101 CASES  U.S. Bancorp v. Retirement Capital Access Management Co. (CBM2013-00014) Found all claims (method and system) unpatentable First case after CLS Abstract idea – (not disputed) advancing funds based on future retirement payments, which is “an economic practice long prevalent” Preamble reciting “computerized method” ignored (relying upon Digitech) Used mental steps test Method required only a generic computer Noted that “preemption is only one test” to use System claims requiring only “use of a computer in a generalized fashion” does not meaningfully limit the claims 64 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

PTAB § 101 CASES  SAP America Inc. v. Lakshmi Arunachalam (CBM2013-00013) Found claims at issue unpatentable Abstract idea – “claim 1 recites an abstract method, i.e., performing a real- time Web transaction by displaying and providing at least one application a user selects to access checking and savings accounts, and transferring funds (i.e., debiting or crediting) in response to user signals from an input device.” “The remaining limitations in claim 1 do not contribute any patent–eligible subject matter. The service network atop the Web … is an abstract concept under which customers and service providers communicate over a network so that the service provider can service the customer…. This does not impose a meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim.” 65 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

PTAB § 101 CASES  SAP America Inc. v. Lakshmi Arunachalam (CBM2014-00018) Found claims (method) at issue unpatentable Dependent claim 9 and 10 at issue Depend upon claim 1, which was found unpatentable under 101 in CBM2013-00013 Claims 9 further limits claim 1 by reciting that the transaction is a loan requested from a lender across the Web from a Web application. Claim 10 further limits claim 1, reciting that the Web transaction is vehicle purchased with bank financing across the Web from a Web application. “Claims 9 and 10 do not add limitations that contribute to patent eligibility.” 66 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

PTAB § 101 CASES  Salesforce.com, Inc. v. Virtualagility, Inc. (CBM2013-00024) Found claims at issue unpatentable Abstract idea – “we find that the challenged claims are directed to an abstract idea, the creation and use of models to aid in processing management information by organizing and making the information readily accessible by the collaborators of the project” “The model, as described by the specification, is a disembodied concept that is not tied to a specific algorithm or specialized computer.” “[T]he claims do not recite a specialized algorithm that could move the claims from the abstract to the concrete.” “[W]ith respect to the processor, we note that at least operations (ii) through (vi) actually are carried out by the user, albeit, via the processor.” “[S]imply executing an abstract concept on a computer does not render a computer ‘specialized,’ nor does it transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one.” 67 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

PTAB § 101 CASES  LinkedIn Corp. v. AvMarkets Inc. (CBM2013-00025) Found claims (method) at issue unpatentable The patent at issue is generally related to generating sales leads on the Internet through the creation of Web pages to display information Abstract idea (Not disputed by Patent Owner) Do the claims contain significant meaningful limitations beyond the abstract idea? We find that the claimed invention merely requires the use of a general-purpose computer. [W]e find that the limitations... identified as meaningful represent merely routine computer technology used in conjunction with a conventional network— the Internet with its billions of existing documents—in a conventional manner, generating Web pages upon activation of a hyperlink. We hold that the additional limitations... are merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which has long been held insufficient to save a claim in this context. 68 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

PTAB § 101 CASES  Metavante Corp. et al. v. Cashedge, Inc. (CBM2013-00028) Found claims (method) at issue unpatentable The patent at issue is generally related to the transfer of funds between accounts at different financial institutions, where the first and second accounts are held commonly. Abstract idea – “The concept of transferring funds from one account to another through an intermediary, as recited in the claims of the ’223 Patent, is a fundamental economic practice. Thus, in the first step of the analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 101, we conclude that claim 1 of the ’223 Patent recites an abstract method.” “Even if the financial system is construed to require implementing complex protocols to access and transfer the data among the accounts, the implementation of those protocols reflects nothing more than implementing the abstract idea of transferring funds thorough an intermediate account with routine, conventional activity. Such an implementation does not transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.” 69 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

PTAB § 101 CASES  International Securities Exchange, LLC v. Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (CBM2013-00049) (CBM2013-00050) (CBM2013-00051) Found claims (method and system) at issue unpatentable The patents relate to automated trading systems for option contracts. Specifically, the claimed inventions are directed to methods for managing the risk of a maker of an options market in an automated trading system. Abstract idea – “we conclude that the concept of managing trading risk (“risk management”) is an economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce and squarely within the realm of abstract ideas.” “The claims contemplate using a generic computer to perform ‘well- understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” 70 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

PTAB § 101 CASES  Dell Inc. v. Disposition Services LLC (CBM2013-00040) Found claims (method and system) at issue unpatentable “The ’944 patent ‘relates to a system and method for the controlled disposition of selected capital assets.’” Abstract idea - “We are persuaded that, like risk hedging in Bilski and intermediated settlement in Alice, the idea of handling a customer’s asset in such a way that the customer can verify that its handling instructions were followed is unpatentably abstract.” “[T]he claims of the ’944 patent do not add any inventive concept to the abstract idea of handling a customer’s physical item in such a way that the customer can verify that its handling instructions were followed.” 71 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

PTAB § 101 CASES  Fidelity National Info. Servs., Inc. v. Check Free Corp. (CBM2013-00030) (CBM2013-00031) (CBM2013-00032) Found claims (method, system, “computer-implemented method,” and “computer program product, comprising a computer usable medium”) at issue unpatentable The patents at issue generally related to electronic commerce and an electronic bill payment systems Abstract idea - “The computer implementation associated with comparing the account number and the credit limit are incidental to the fundamental economic concept of having a third party intermediate a settlement either by crediting the payee from the third party’s funds (as in a credit transaction) or from the payer’s funds (as when the amounts exceed the payer’s credit limit with the service provider).” “A computer used for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, does not impose a meaningful claim limitation.” 72 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

PTAB § 101 CASES  American Express Co. et al. v. MetaSearch Sys., LLC (CBM2014-00001) Found claims (method) at issue unpatentable The patent at issue is generally related to metasearching on the internet Abstract idea - “[T]he claim embraces the abstract idea of marketing an item on a metasearch Web site with keyword ads and providing a way to order the item.” “[T]he claims recite, for the most part, an ordered combination of steps that contain Internet operations that were conventional at the time of invention.” “The claims are drawn to implementing the abstract idea … with routine, conventional activity. Such an implementation does not transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.” 73 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

PTAB § 101 CASES  Agilysis, Inc. et al. v. Ameranth, Inc. (CBM2014-00015) Found claims (system) at issue unpatentable The patent at issue is generally related to a GUI for building menus Abstract idea – “[W]e determine that claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location.” “Independent claims 1 recites a CPU, a data storage device, and an operating system with a GUI. … These claim elements require nothing more than a generic computer with generic computer elements performing generic computer functions.” “Further, displaying menus in a GUI, including in a hierarchical format, is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity that does not add significantly more to the abstract idea.” 74 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

PTAB § 101 CASES  Regions Financial Corp. et al. v. Retirement Capital Access Management Co. LLC (CBM2014-00012) Found claims (method) at issue unpatentable The patent at issue is generally related to a method for enabling recipients of Social Security payments to convert a designated portion of future payments into currently available financial resources. Abstract idea – “[W]e find that the concept of advancing funds based on future retirement payments is an economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce and squarely within the real of abstract ideas.” “[W]e conclude that even if we were to construe the “deposited” limitation of claims 1 and 18 to require a computer, the claims amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of advancing funds based on future retirement payments using an unspecified, generic computer.” 75 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

PTAB § 101 CASES  Westlake Servs., LLC v. Credit Acceptance Corp. (CBM2014-00008) Found claims (method) at issue unpatentable The patent at issue is generally related to a method for facilitating the purchase of products on credit and a system for implementing such a method. Abstract idea – “The abstract idea of processing an application for financing a purchase claimed is a known concept described in the ’807 patent.” “We are not persuaded that the claims include something beyond the abstract idea that transforms the claimed abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. Merely using a computer to speed the steps of generating a financing package for each item of inventory is not such a transformation.” 76 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

PTAB § 101 CASES  Google Inc. v. Unwired Planet, LLC (CBM2014-00004) (CBM2014-00006) Found claims (method) at issue unpatentable The patent at issue is generally related to using location-based services over mobile wireless networks. Abstract idea – “[T]he claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, specifically, the abstract idea of controlling access to location information using a subscriber profile.” “The wireless network, wireless device, and access terminal are all defined in the specification as including commonly known technical solutions. … Thus, the hardware itself certainly is not an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patentable claim.” 77 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

PTAB § 101 CASES  Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. v. DataTreasury Corp. (CBM2014-00020), (CBM2014-00021) Found claims (method) at issue unpatentable The patents at issue are generally related to a system for remote data acquisition, and centralized processing and storage of the acquired data. Abstract idea – “[W]e have identified the abstract idea as involving the transfer of information from one location to another where the transferred information is unreadable without a secret decoder key….” “We hold that the additional limitations in Patent Owner’s claims that seek to narrow the application of the abstract idea are merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular field of use or add token postsolution components, which has long been held insufficient to save a claim in this context.” 78 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

PTAB § 101 CASES  Bank of America, N.A. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC (CBM2014-00028) Found claims (method and system) at issue unpatentable The patent at issue is generally related to a credit facility for allowing a user to place self-imposed limits on the user’s spending in selected transaction categories. Abstract idea – “[T]he ʼ 137 patent claims are directed to the abstract idea of storing information about a user’s preferences for a credit limit and presenting, i.e., notifying, the user of the limit when providing the user a transaction summary based on categories.” “[T]he claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with routine, conventional activity.” (quoting Ultramercial) 79 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

PTAB § 101 CASES  Bank of America, N.A. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC (CBM2014-00029) Found claims (method, apparatus, and article of manufacture) at issue unpatentable The patent at issue is generally related to facilitating electronic purchases while maintaining privacy of customer billing data. Abstract idea – “[T]he claims are directed to the basic idea of protecting personal billing data from thieves and hackers by providing ‘substitute billing data’ to a consumer for making online purchasing transactions.” “[C]laim 1, which merely requires generic computer implementation, fails to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” 80 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

PTAB § 101 CASES  Bank of America, N.A. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC (CBM2014-00030) Found claims (method and system) at issue unpatentable The patent at issue is generally related to a system for delivering information from an information provider to an information user that is selectively tailored toward the capabilities of the information provider and the needs of the information user. Abstract idea – “[T]he ʼ 382 patent claims are directed to the abstract idea of tailoring an information provider’s web page based on data about a particular user.” “[C]laims 1–23 of the ʼ 382 patent simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with routine, conventional activity. … [N]one of the elements recited in the claims, including the ‘interactive interface’ and the ‘plurality of data streams,’ transforms the nature of the claims into patent-eligible subject matter.” 81 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

PTAB § 101 CASES  Bank of America, N.A. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC (CBM2014-00033) Found claims (method) at issue unpatentable The patent at issue is generally related to a method for organizing digital images. Abstract idea – “[T]he claims of the ’587 patent are directed to the abstract idea of organizing digital images of hard copy prints according to an instruction form.” “Claims 1, 10, and 18 all use conventional computer components in a well understood way to produce, as Petitioner states, a photo album.” 82 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

PTAB § 101 CASES  American Express Co. v. Harvey Lunenfeld (CBM2014-00050) Found claims (process) at issue unpatentable The patent at issue is generally related to a method and system for client- server multitasking or metasearching. Abstract idea – “[C]laims 1 and 21 are each directed to the abstract idea of searching for travel information from multiple sources and ordering travel items from the combined search results––essentially, the abstract idea of buying a trip chosen from multiple options provided through a knowledgeable travel broker.” “We find that the challenged claims recite Internet conventions that were common in the art at the time of the invention.” 83 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

PTAB § 101 CASES  Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. v. MyMedical Records, Inc. (CBM2015-00022) Found claims (method) at issue unpatentable The patent at issue is generally related to a method for consumers to request their medical records from health care providers and store their medical records for online access. Abstract idea – “[T]he claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea: privately managing files by the user.” “We conclude that receiving and sending data is a routine and conventional computer function.” “Restricting access by password also is routine and conventional.” “Claim 8 includes additional recitations relating to how data is stored and managed on the server. We determine that these limitations recite generic functions performed by a generic server and computing device. Storing files is a basic computer function.” 84 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

PTAB § 101 CASES  Cambridge Associates, LLC v. Capital Dynamics (CBM2014-00079) Found claims (method) at issue unpatentable The patent at issue is generally related to method for analyzing a performance of a financial product or asset having an irregular cash flow by “benchmarking the performance” of the asset relative to “a public market or other index.” Abstract idea – “[B]ecause we agree with Petitioner that the challenged claims involve determining a mathematical correlation, like the claims in Digitech, we conclude that the first step in the Alice/Mayo test is met for claims 1–17.” “[M]athematical computations, even if required by the claims, are not sufficient to transform the claims into patent eligible subject matter.” “[T]he claimed steps do not add a technological advance because they are directed to the abstract idea of manipulating and calculating data for a financial product.” 85 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

PTAB § 101 CASES  eBay, Inc. v. Paid, Inc. (CBM2014-00125) – (CBM2014-00128) Found claims (method) at issue unpatentable The patents at issue is generally related to using location-based services over mobile wireless networks Abstract idea – All four patents at issue, “like the claims in Bilski and Alice, are directed to an abstract idea, namely, determining shipping rates for an online auction item.” “The claims simply recite steps that were routinely done manually before the filing date of the patent.” “[S]imply adding a computer limitation to claims covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patentable under § 101, even if the use of a computer enables faster operation.” 86 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

TIPS  At district court, file early motion  Build a sufficient factual record to support your argument  Build a sufficient legal record to support the changing landscape Machine-or-transformation test Generic computer hardware/special computer test Abstract idea analysis Mental steps test Point-of-novelty test Case-specific factual comparisons  Know the Supreme Court § 101 cases  Frame the issue  Tips for Accused infringers  Tips for Patent Owners 87 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

2014 INTERIM GUIDANCE ON PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY 88  Supplements the June 25, 2014 Preliminary Instructions  Supersedes the March 4, 2014 Procedures for Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis of Claims Reciting or Involving Laws of Nature/Natural Principles, Natural Phenomena, and/or Natural Products  Supersedes MPEP §§ 2106(II)(A), 2106(II)(B), and 2106.01  Supersedes MPEP § 2105 to the extent that the section suggests that “mere human intervention” necessarily results in eligible subject matter Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

SAFE HARBORS 90  “Significantly More” Considerations –Improvements to another technology or technical field –Adding a specific limitation other than what is well- understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application –Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

JULY 2015 UPDATE ON SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY – 80 FR 45429 91  Showing lack of preemption not enough to overcome 101 rejection  Examiners given power similar to “judicial notice” Need to provide evidence to establish what is old and well- known in the claims  New examples help in determining an “abstract idea” Useful examples to show what passes muster under the significantly more test  There is still no clear definition of an “abstract idea” PTO provides categories of abstract ideas (i.e., organizing human activities)  Rise of the “technical effect” test? Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

JULY 2015 UPDATE ON SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY – 80 FR 45429 92  Showing lack of preemption not enough to overcome 101 rejection –“[W]hile a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not guarantee that a claim is eligible.” –Need to show that a claim clearly does not preempt the abstract idea that the claim is eligible for streamlined analysis –Participate in the First Action Interview program to present §101 related arguments to the examiner before a §101 rejections is ever made Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

JULY 2015 UPDATE ON SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY – 80 FR 45429 93  Examiners given power similar to “judicial notice” –Examiner does not have to provide evidence of what is “well-understood, routine, and conventional” –Applicants will have little recourse to argue with the examiner regarding what is “generally known in the art” Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

JULY 2015 UPDATE ON SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY – 80 FR 45429 94  New examples help in determining an “abstract idea” –Example 21 compares and contrasts hypothetical software claims –Examples 22 and 23 are directed to GUIs and show the level of detail needed to distinguish patent eligible claims –Example 27 provides streamlined eligibility analysis for a claim directed to remote access and storage of computer control software Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

JULY 2015 UPDATE ON SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY – 80 FR 45429 95  Rise of the “technical effect” test? –Example 21 provides “additional limitations” that transform the claim from “a generic computer performing generic computer functions” to “an ordered combination” that addresses an “Internet-centric challenge” –Examples 23 and 25 also refer to an “ordered combination” that renders the claim patent eligible  As a whole, the claims contain language affixing the method to a particular technology area and cause a particular technical effect  Showed that the claim “demonstrate[d] an improvement in the field” or “improve[d] the functioning” of the computer itself Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

DESPITE NEW GUIDELINES AND TRAINING MATERIALS, EXAMINERS CONTINUE TO MAKE BOILER PLATE SECTION 101 REJECTIONS  Broad characterization of the abstract idea, natural law or physical phenomenon  Treating software as an abstract idea even when embodied as executable code in the claims  Treating claim limitations as old and conventional without citing prior art to support the findings 96 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

REJECTIONS UNDER SECTION 101 OF COMPUTER RELATED APPLICATIONS 97  Claim 1: An automatic analyzer comprising: a reaction disc configured to hold a plurality of cuvettes, each of the cuvettes containing a sample and a reagent; a cleaning mechanism configured to clean the plurality of cuvettes using a plurality of nozzles; a setting unit configured to set role in cleaning of a target cuvette to each of the plurality of nozzles for sequentially cleaning the target cuvette used in measurement of a plurality of measurement items, for each of the plurality of measurement items of the sample; and a controller configured to control the cleaning mechanism to clean the target cuvette according to the set role in cleaning. Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

REJECTIONS UNDER SECTION 101 OF COMPUTER RELATED APPLICATIONS 98  Con’t  Claims 1-3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to non- statutory subject matter. −the instant apparatus claims recite a controller, which can be construed as software (i.e., a set of instructions/algorithm capable of being executed by a computer), which is not statutory subject matter. Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

RESPONDING TO § 101 REJECTIONS 99  Challenge definition of abstract idea  Amend to add technical limitations that are specialized  Amend claims to require “specific” ordered technical way of accomplishing process  Argue improvement to technical field to which claims are applied −If possible, argue that claims could not be performed without claimed specialized component or combination of components, and that the components add “significantly more” Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

IMPLICATIONS 100  A major problem could exist for pending applications that lack sufficient disclosure regarding the details of advances to technology provided by an invention.  Need to adopt claim-drafting techniques that target a lower level of abstraction, including incorporating implementation details into claims that illustrate an improvement of the functioning of a computer, technology, or technical field provided by an invention. Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

PRACTICAL TIPS FOR DRAFTING SPECIFICATIONS 101  Explain the technical implementation in detail − Stress improvements in functioning of computer  Emphasize technical solution to a technical problem being solved and novel technical effects  Avoid generic computer description − Emphasize specialized technical features  Use technical terminology to distance invention from pure business method − E.g., “advertisement” -> “multimedia content file” Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

PRACTICAL TIPS FOR DRAFTING CLAIMS 102  Draft method and system claims differently – System claims should not merely be written as means plus function claims that mirror the method claims  Draft and prosecute narrow claims first  Focus on specialized technical features of invention  Prosecute system claims first  Avoid claim limitations that read on mental steps  Per In re Alappat, claims should emphasize how the general purpose computer is configured into a specific purpose computer Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

EX PARTE CYRIAC J. WEGMAN III 103  Representative Claim:  A method for providing an empirical model of a defined space comprising steps of: a. defining the desired space; b. describing at least a portion of the defined space with multiple correlated dimensions; c. reducing the dimensionality of the described portion; d. combining the described portion with the remaining portion of the defined space; e. creating a hypothetical model of the defined space; and f. calculating coefficients for the hypothetical model according to an analysis of real and/or or virtual objects. Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

EX PARTE CYRIAC J. WEGMAN III 104  The PTAB reversed the examiner’s § 101 rejection  The PTAB found that: – “claim 1 requires performing an analysis of objects, either actual or virtual, and calculating coefficients for the model based upon that analysis,” and – “these steps are sufficiently concrete as to set them outside the broad definition of abstract idea as set forth in Alice.” Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

EX PARTE BRUCE GORDON FULLER ET AL. 105  Representative Claim:  A method of associating a first variable and an event on a display, the method comprising: displaying the first variable relative to a time period on the display, resulting in a graph of the first variable; receiving first user input from a graphical indicator device, wherein the first user input comprises an instruction to position an indicator over a portion of a data curve of the graph corresponding to a time period of interest to the user; in a processor, determining if the event occurred during the time period of interest; and displaying the event on the display nearby the portion of the graph if the event occurred during the time period of interest. Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

EX PARTE BRUCE GORDON FULLER ET AL. 106  The PTAB reversed the examiner’s § 101 rejection  The PTAB agreed with the Appellant’s arguments that: – “[C]laim 1 recites physical elements that ‘allow a user to view a graph and an event occurring during a time period of interest on the display if the processor determines that an event occurred’ and that ‘these elements provide sufficient structure to prevent the method steps from being interpreted as too abstract.’” – “[T]he specification describes each of these elements as [a] physical computer component.” Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

CONCLUSION 107  Take advantage of safe harbors −Improvements to another technology or technical fields −Improvements to the functioning of the computer −Take advantage of the training examples (21, 23, 25)  Emphasis that claimed invention provides technical solutions to technical problems  Emphasize the novel and non-obvious limitations that are not conventional and are subject to the MOT test for process claims.  Point out why the new combination of old elements achieves a novel and non-obvious result (i.e., an inventive contribution) Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

THE SUPREME COURT ON PATENT LAW “In this well organized, readily accessible and highly readable treatise, Michael Kiklis analyzes the serial interventions by the Supreme Court that keep altering the purely statutory patent law as interpreted by the Federal Circuit and understood by patent practitioners. Because these alterations are continuing and even accelerating, practitioners need to anticipate where the Court is headed next if they are to serve their clients well. By stressing trends and explaining dicta for what it may portend, Kiklis provides an invaluable chart for navigating shifting seas." – Paul Michel, former Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit “In this one volume, Michael Kiklis has filled in a critical gap in our understanding of modern American patent law. Every person interested in the field must study the current Supreme Court’s take on patents, and there is no better source than this treatise.” – Tom Goldstein, Publisher, Scotusblog.com 108 Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

35 U.S.C. §101 November 2, 2015 Stephen G. Kunin Michael L. Kiklis Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt,

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "35 U.S.C. §101 November 2, 2015 Stephen G. Kunin Michael L. Kiklis Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt,"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

35 U.S.C. §101 November 2, 2015 Stephen G. Kunin Michael L. Kiklis Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt,

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "35 U.S.C. §101 November 2, 2015 Stephen G. Kunin Michael L. Kiklis Copyright © 2015 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt,"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback