Post-CLS case on 35 U.S.C. 101, Accenture Global Services, GMBH and Accenture LLP v. Guidewire Software, Inc., Federal Circuit 2013

Accenture Global Services, GmbH and Accenture, LLP (“Accenture”) appealed from the grant of summary judgment by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware holding that all claims of U.S. Patent 7,013,284 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

The ‘284 software patent describes a computer program for handling insurance-related tasks.

The software patent discloses various software components, including a “data component that stores, retrieves and manipulates data” and a client component that “transmits and receives data to/from the data component.” The client component also includes a business component that “serves as a data cache and includes logic for manipulating the data.”  There is also a controller component to handle program events and an adapter component to interface with a data repository.

The specification contains detailed descriptions of the various software components, including many of the functions those components utilize and how those components interact.

Claim 1 is a claim to a software system for generating tasks to be performed in an insurance organization and recites:
       A system for generating tasks to be performed in an insurance organization, the system comprising:
       an insurance transaction database for storing information related to an insurance transaction, the insurance transaction database comprising a claim folder containing the information related to the insurance transaction decomposed into a plurality of levels from the group comprising a policy level, a claim level, a participant level and a line level, wherein the plurality of levels reflects a policy, the information related to the insurance transaction, claimants and an insured person in a structured format;
       a task library database for storing rules for determining tasks to be completed upon an occurrence of an event;
       a client component in communication with the insurance transaction database configured for providing information relating to the insurance transaction, said client component enabling access by an assigned claim handler to a plurality of tasks that achieve an insurance related goal upon completion; and
       a server component in communication with the client component, the transaction database and the task library database, the server component including an event processor, a task engine and a task assistant;
       wherein the event processor is triggered by application events associated with a change in the information, and sends an event trigger to the task engine; wherein in response to the event trigger, the task engine identifies rules in the task library database associated with the event and applies the information to the identified rules to determine the tasks to be completed, and populates on a task assistant the determined tasks to be completed, wherein the task assistant transmits the determined tasks to the client component.

 Claim 8 claims a software method for generating tasks to be performed in an insurance organization and recites:
       An automated method for generating tasks to be performed in an insurance organization, the method comprising: 

       transmitting information related to an insurance transaction;
       determining characteristics of the information related to the insurance transaction; 

       applying the characteristics of the information related to the insurance transaction to rules to determine a task to be completed, wherein an event processor interacts with an insurance transaction database containing information related to an insurance transaction decomposed into a plurality of levels from the group comprising a policy level, a claim level, a participant level and a line level, wherein the plurality of levels reflects a policy, the information related to the insurance transaction, claimants and an insured person in a structured format; 

       transmitting the determined task to a task assistant accessible by an assigned claim handler, wherein said client component displays the determined task; 

       allowing an authorized user to edit and perform the determined task and to update the information related to the insurance transaction in accordance with the determined task;

       storing the updated information related to the insurance transaction; and

       generating a historical record of the completed task.

The Federal Circuit found many similarities between the apparatus claim and method claim and noted that both claim 1 and claim 8 disclose aspects of “generating tasks to be performed in an insurance organization.”  They also noted that claim 1 and claim 8 further include many of the same software components.  

The Federal Circuit stated that they recently evaluated 35 U.S.C. § 101 and its application to computer software in CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc). The plurality opinion in CLS Bank identified a two-step process, derived from the Supreme Court’s decision in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012), for analyzing patent eligibility under § 101. First, the court must identify “whether the claimed invention fits within one of the four statutory classes set out in § 101.”  Second, one must assess whether any of the judicially recognized exceptions to subject-matter eligibility apply, including whether the claims are to patent-ineligible abstract ideas.

In the case of abstractness of a software patent, the court must determine whether the claim poses “any risk of preempting an abstract idea.”  To do so the court must first “identify and define whatever fundamental concept appears wrapped up in the claim.”  Then, proceeding with the preemption analysis, the balance of the claim is evaluated to determine whether “additional substantive limitations . . . narrow, confine, or otherwise tie down the claim so that, in practical terms, it does not cover the full abstract idea itself.”

The Federal Circuit then stated that although CLS Bank issued as a plurality opinion, in that case a majority of the court held that system claims that closely track method claims and are grounded by the same meaningful limitations will generally rise and fall together.  

The district court in this case held that the method claims of the ’284 software patent are invalid under § 101. That judgment was not appealed by Accenture.  That may have been a big mistake.

The Federal Circuit stated that because the ’284 software patent’s method claims were found to be patent ineligible, they should first compare the substantive limitations of the method claim and the system claim to see if the system claim offers a “meaningful limitation” to the abstract method claim, which has already been adjudicated to be patent-ineligible.  CLS Bank, 717 F.3d at 1291.

Under this analysis, the court compares the two claims to determine what limitations overlap, then identify the system claim’s additional
limitations. Essentially, the court must determine whether the system claim offers meaningful limitations “beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment.’” Id. (quoting Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3230).  

The court went on to say that the ’284 software patent’s system claim 1 includes virtually the same limitations and many of the same software components as the patent-ineligible method claims. Both claims are for “generating tasks to be performed in an insurance organization.”

Accenture only points to system claim 1’s inclusion of an insurance claim folder, a task library database, a server component, and a task engine in attempting to show that the system claim is meaningfully different from the ’284 patent’s method claims. However, according to the Federal Circuit, these software components are all present in the method claims, albeit without a specific reference to those components by name.

The Federal Circuit stated that even the specification of the ’284 patent makes little distinction between the system and method claims.

According to the Federal Circuit, because the system claim and method claim contain only “minor differences in terminology [but] require performance of the same basic process,” they should rise or fall together.

Accenture reasonably argued that system claim 1 of the software patent remains patent-eligible even after CLS Bank. It contended that the claim is patent-eligible because the ’284 patent implements the general idea of generating tasks for insurance claim processing, but narrows it through its recitation of a combination of computer components including an insurance transaction database, a task library database, a client component, and a server component, which includes an event processor, a task engine, and a task assistant. Accenture further argued that the complexity and detail of the specification demonstrate that the patent is an advance in computer software and not simply a claim to an abstract idea. Additionally, Accenture pointed to the recently-issued decision in Ultramercial as support for the patent-eligibility of system claim 1.

Guidewire responded that system claim 1 of the software patent sets forth the same steps and recites all the same elements as method claim 8 and requires no specific hardware or any particular algorithm.

The Federal Circuit finally concluded that the system claims of the ’284 software patent were patent-ineligible both because Accenture was unable to point to any substantial limitations that separate them from the similar, patent-ineligible method claim and
because, under the two-part test of CLS Bank, the system claim does not, on its own, provide substantial limitations to the claim’s patent-ineligible abstract idea.  

Judge Rader dissented.  I agree with his dissent.  He noted that prior to granting en banc review in CLS Bank, the Federal Circuit commented: “no one understands what makes an idea abstract.”  After CLS Bank, nothing has changed.  Opinions spend page after page revisiting cases and those of the Supreme Court, and still we continue to disagree vigorously over what is or is not patentable subject matter.

Indeed, deciding what makes an idea “abstract” is “reminiscent of the oenologists trying to describe a new wine.”

I couldn’t agree more.