The History of Software Patents

CONTOUR IP HOLDING, LLC v. GOPRO, INC, Federal Circuit 2018 (Software Patents)

Is a GoPro too Abstract to be Patentable?

Fig. 33 from US Patent No 8890954Contour IP Holding LLC owns U.S. Patent Nos. 8,890,954 and 8,896,694.  The two patents share virtually identical specifications. Contour sued GoPro for patent infringement. According to Contour, several of GoPro’s point-of-view digital video camera products infringed its patents.  POV video cameras are often used to capture a scene from a user’s point-of-view rather than from a thirdperson viewpoint. The patents disclose a hands-free, POV action sports video camera configured for remote image acquisition control and viewing. A POV camera is one that is mounted in a location that does not permit the user to easily see the camera. A skier, for example, may wish to…

Read More
BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Federal Circuit 2024 (Software Patents)

System for addressing on-demand TV program content on TV services platform of a digital TV services provider Broadband iTV sued Amazon in the Western District of Texas alleging patent infringement of five patents relating to user interfaces. Amazon moved for summary judgment, arguing that all asserted claims were patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court granted Amazon’s motion, finding the claims were directed to an abstract idea and the patents failed to provide an inventive step that transformed that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.   Four of the patents are related:  U.S. Patent Nos. 10,028,026 (’026 patent); 9,648,388 (’388 patent); 10,536,750 (’750 patent); and 10,536,751.

The ’026 patent and its related…

Read More
MILLER MENDEL, INC. v. CITY OF ANNA, TEXAS, FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2024 (SOFTWARE PATENTS)

Miller Mendel, Inc. sued the City of Anna, Texas for patent infringement regarding a software system for background investigations, but the district court ruled the patent claims ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Miller Mendel alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,043,188 relating to pre-employment background checks.  Claim 1 is representative and recites:

  1. A method for a computing device with a processor and a system memory to assist an investigator in conducting a background investigation of an applicant for a position within a first organization, comprising the steps of:
  • receiving a first set of program data comprising information identifying the applicant, the position, the first organization, and the investigator;
  • storing a new applicant entry in the system memory, the new…
Read More
WHY PATENTS ARE NOT WHAT THEY USED TO BE (PART 4)

If you read my blog on the History of Software Patents, you’ll see that the pendulum has swung from “anything under the sun made by man” being eligible for patent protection, according to the Supreme Court in Diamond v Chakrabarty in 1980 to the current two step Alice v CLS analysis where even a device with two image sensors, two lenses, analog-to-digital converting circuitry, an image memory, and a digital image processor was considered to be too abstract to be eligible for patent protection in Yu v Apple.

It has become much harder to patent software, even though software inventions are one of the most common types of inventions.  A large percentage of patent applications that are filed are for software.  Many AI and…

Read More
WHY PATENTS ARE NOT WHAT THEY USED TO BE (Part 3)

The America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011 fundamentally altered the U.S. patent landscape, introducing new mechanisms for challenging patent validity outside of traditional federal court litigation. While proponents argued these reforms would improve patent quality and reduce frivolous litigation, critics contend the AIA has created serious constitutional concerns and undermined the innovation economy.

Background: The Patent System Before and After the AIA

Historical Foundation

For over two centuries, the U.S. patent system operated on well-established principles. Patents were treated as presumptively valid property rights that could only be invalidated through Article III federal courts, where defendants challenging patent validity faced a “clear and convincing evidence” standard. This system provided inventors with relatively stable intellectual property rights…

Read More
Why Patents are Not What They Used to Be (Part 2)

You went through the complicated, expensive process to obtain a patent.  A big tech company copied you.  You’d think you would be made whole if someone infringes your patent.  You may be mistaken.

When I first started practicing patent law, I was taught to show and describe the largest system in which the invention could potentially be employed.  That was because this allowed for the possibility of obtaining damages based on the value of the entire system.  So if your client brought you an improved carburetor, for example, you would show and describe an entire car in your patent application.

Apportionment of Patent Damages

According to the patent statutes, damages for infringement shall be “adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for…

Read More
Why Patents are Not What They Used to Be (Part 1)

Utility patents used to have much more value in the past than they do now.  There was a time when patents were a useful tool for all companies, big and small.  Due to a variety of decisions and lobbying by Big Tech, patents are now primarily a tool for big businesses.  I will lay out my case for why patents are no longer as good as they used to be in this and coming articles.

The Value of Patents Has Declined

In a case called Uniloc USA, Inc. v Microsoft Corp., the pendulum swung against the patent holder.  The Federal Circuit, our court of appeals for patent cases, held that royalties should be based not on the entire product but on the smallest salable patent practicing unit.  After the…

Read More
BETEIRO V DRAFTKINGS, FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2024 (SOFTWARE PATENTS)

Beteiro owns U.S. Patent Nos. 9,965,920, 10,043,341, 10,147,266, and 10,255,755. All of the patents share a common specification and title: “Apparatus and Method for Facilitating Gaming Activity and/or Gambling Activity.” The patents disclose an invention which facilitates gaming activity and/or gambling activity at a gaming venue remote from the user’s or individual’s physical location” such that the user can “participate in live gaming activity and/or gambling activity via a user communication device” even if the user is not in the same location as the gaming venue. The ‘920 patent explains that many individuals enjoy gambling but may not always have access to particular gaming venues or gaming activities, for reasons including that the individuals may be located in a…

Read More
How to Patent a Product (from a Patent Attorney’s Perspective)

Patenting a product is one of the most important steps you can take to protect your intellectual property and build long-term value around your invention. As a patent attorney, I’ve worked with everyone from garage inventors to established startups, and I’ve seen how getting a patent can make or break a business. I’ve also seen the costly messes that come from skipping steps or filing a provisional or regular patent application hastily without understanding the process.

Let’s clear up a common myth right out of the gate: mailing your idea to yourself, signing an NDA, or describing your product in a blog post does not protect your patent rights. A patent is the only formal legal protection that prevents others from making, using, or selling your invention without…

Read More
IOENGINE, LLC v INGENICO INC., FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2024

IOENGINE, LLC appealed decisions of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Office’s Patent Trial and Appeals Board that found unpatentable certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,539,047; 9,059,969; and 9,774,703.

The patents relate to a tunneling client access point (TCAP) that is a “highly secure, portable, power efficient storage and data processing device” that, upon plugging in to an access terminal (desktop or laptop computer), may make use of the terminal’s traditional user interface and input/output peripherals while the TCAP provides storage, execution, and/or processing resources.  The TCAP tunnels data through the access terminal by allowing data to be provided through the access terminal’s input/output facilities for the user to observe without the data actually residing on the access terminal.

Claim 1 of the ‘969 patent is representative and…

Read More