The History of Software Patents

HomePage 3
CAREDX, INC. V. NATERA, INC., FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2022 (SOFTWARE PATENTS)
By Deepak MalhotraMarch 6, 2023

The Federal Circuit stated in this decision that CareDx’s patents apply conventional measurement techniques to detect a natural phenomenon—the level of donor cfDNA and the likelihood of organ transplant rejection.

CareDx and Stanford appealed a decision holding that Stanford’s Patents 8,703,652, 9,845,497, and 10,329,607 are ineligible for patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  The three patents share the same specification and are entitled “Non-Invasive Diagnosis of Graft Rejection in Organ Transplant Patients.” These patents discuss diagnosing or predicting organ transplant status by using methods to detect a donor’s cell-free DNA (“cfDNA”). When an organ
transplant is rejected, the recipient’s body, through its natural immune response, destroys the donor cells, thus releasing cfDNA from the donated organ’s dying cells…

Read More
I asked ChatGPT (Artificial Intelligence) to Write an Article on Software Patents
By Deepak MalhotraJanuary 28, 2023

I asked ChatGPT AI to write an article on Software Patents.  This is what it came up with.  What do you think?

Software patents refer to legal protections granted to creators of new and innovative software programs. These patents allow the creators to prevent others from using, selling, or copying their software without permission.

The debate surrounding software patents has been ongoing for decades, with some arguing that they stifle innovation and competition, while others argue that they are necessary to protect the rights of software developers.

One argument against software patents is that they can be used to stifle competition. For example, a company with a large portfolio of software patents may use…

Read More
Cosmokey Solutions GMBH & Co. v. Duo Security LLC, Federal Circuit 2021 (Software Patents)
By Deepak MalhotraOctober 23, 2022

Reducing complexity, in an authentication method, provides a technical improvement over conventional authentication methods. Applicant’s specification emphasizes the inventive nature of these steps and describes how authentication complexity is reduced.

CosmoKey’s U.S. Patent No. 9,246,903 was found to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 by a District Court.

The patent is titled “Authentication Method” and discloses an authentication method that is both low in complexity and high in security.

The patent specification indicates that when a user communicates with a remote transaction partner (e.g., a bank, a store, or a secured database) via the Internet, “it is important to assure that an individual that identifies itself as an authorized user is actually the person it alleges to be.”  The specification also describes several conventional authentication methods involving a user’s mobile…

Read More
Mentone Solutions LLC v Digi International, Federal Circuit 2021 (Software Patents)
By Deepak MalhotraSeptember 3, 2022

Characterization of an invention must reflect the claimed invention at an appropriate level of abstraction, for an Alice analysis.

U.S. Patent No. 6, 952,413 relates to resource allocation in general packet radio systems.  In those systems, a number of mobile stations communicate with a single network through physical links called Packet Data Channels. When the mobile stations receive information from the network, they are engaging in downlink (DL) communication, and when
the mobile stations are transmitting information to the network, they are engaging in uplink (UL) communication. These mobile stations communicate within time frames, each divided into eight timeslots. To control access to the Packet Data Channels, which are shared among mobile stations, the network uses an uplink status flag (USF)….

Read More
In Re Elbaum, Federal Circuit 2021 (Software Patents)
By Deepak MalhotraAugust 30, 2022

Enabling an internet seller to pay a finder’s fee to a retail store when a customer finds the internet seller’s product through advertising in the retail store is not patent-eligible.

Mr. Elbaum’s patent application number 15/948,447 relates to selling products or services on the internet using physical retail locations. The specification describes the disclosed method as “enabling the sale of products or services which are available on the internet. The disclosed method allows an internet seller to provide a retail store with information about products or services available on the internet. The information includes a website address and a code, wherein the code is associated with that particular retail location. A customer entering the retail store who obtains this information can then use the code to make a…

Read More
YU V. APPLE INC., FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2021 (SOFTWARE PATENTS)
By Deepak MalhotraAugust 23, 2021

Two image sensors, two lenses, analog-to-digital converting circuitry, an image memory, and a digital image processor were not enough hardware. The claims were still found to be too abstract here.

There has been a lot of uncertainty in the field of Software Patents since the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice v. CLS.  The Supreme Court struck down a software patent covering a financial method involving hedging.  Roughly speaking, the Supreme Court invalidated a software patent in which conventional steps were computerized as being “not statutory;” i.e., not meeting the requirements of patent statute 35 U.S.C. 101.  The Federal Circuit and other courts have struggled to interpret this decision and apply it to software patents and business method patents.

In this decision, that uncertainty has been extended dramatically to…

Read More
IN RE SARADA MOHAPATRA, FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2021 (SOFTWARE PATENTS)
By Deepak MalhotraMarch 12, 2021

Enabling a credit card user to change the security code on the card by using a web application, to counter credit card fraud, is too abstract to be patent-eligible.

Mr. Mohapatra’s patent application is directed to a method for countering credit card fraud by enabling a cardholder to change the card’s security code at any time by using a card account management facility accessible over the Internet. The claimed method provides that the new security code will be different from the code printed on the card and different from the last recorded code.

Claim 18 of the application, which is representative, recites the following:

18. A method for countering credit card fraud arising from compromised credit card information
by utilizing cardholder changeable card security code (CSC; also known as card verification…

Read More
SIMIO, LLC V FLEXSIM SOFTWARE PRODUCTS, INC, FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2020 (SOFTWARE PATENTS)
By Deepak MalhotraJanuary 29, 2021

According to the Federal Circuit, simply applying the already-widespread practice of using graphics instead of programming to the environment of object-oriented simulations is no more than an abstract idea.

Simio, LLC sued FlexSim in District Court for infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,156,468. The district court found the patent to be ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Simio appealed.

The patent also describes a trend that emerged in the 1980s and 1990s: using graphics to simplify building simulations. The patent’s purported invention concerns making object-oriented simulation easier and more accessible by letting users build simulations with graphics instead of programming.

Claim 1 is the only independent claim and recites:

A computer-based system for developing simulation models on a physical computing device, the…

Read More
TECSEC V ADOBE, SAP, CISCO, SYBASE, SOFTWARE AG, ORACLE, FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2020 (SOFTWARE PATENTS)
By Deepak MalhotraJanuary 22, 2021

Multilevel security claims were patent eligible because they were directed to solving a technical problem specific to computer network security. The district court correctly rejected Adobe’s ineligibility challenge.

TecSec owns U.S. Patent Nos. 5,369,702, 5,680,452, 5,717,755, and 5,898,781, the patents involved in this case. The patents are entitled “Distributed Cryptographic Object Method” (“DCOM”) and claim particular systems and methods for multi-level security of various kinds of files being transmitted in a data network. The DCOM patents describe a method in which a digital object—e.g., a document, video, or spreadsheet—is assigned a level of security that corresponds to a certain combination of access controls and encryption. The encrypted object can then be embedded or “nested” within a “container object,” which,…

Read More
PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC V NETSCOUT SYSTEMS, INC (FORMERLY TEKTRONIX), FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2020 (SOFTWARE PATENTS)
By Deepak MalhotraJanuary 21, 2021

NetScout Systems appealed from a judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas which held that NetScout willfully infringed various claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,665,725; 6,839,751; and 6,954,789 and held that the claims were valid under 35 U.S.C. §101.

The patents disclose a method for monitoring packets ex-changed over a computer network. A stream of packets between two computers is called a connection flow. Monitoring connection flows cannot account for disjointed sequences of the same flow in a network.  The specifications explain that it is more useful to identify and classify “conversational flows,” defined as “the sequence of packets that are ex-changed in any direction as a result of an activity.” Conversational flows provide application-specific…

Read More