CISCO SYSTEMS v UNILOC, FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2020 (SOFTWARE PATENTS)

Uniloc (Uniloc 2017 LLC) appealed from a decision of the Northern District of California holding claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 6,980,522 ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

The patent relates to a radio communication system comprising a plurality of stations capable of forming an ad-hoc network. Each station within the network is capable of acting as either a master or a slave. The specification explains that one aspect of the invention is a method of operating the system which includes ranking each of the stations based on its suitability to act as a master “and arranging for the role of master to be taken by the station having the highest rank.”

Claim 6 covers that embodiment and recites:

  1. A method of operating an ad-hoc radio communication system having a plurality of stations formed into at least one network, the method comprising the step of:
  • determining a master/slave rank of each station in the network representative of the station’s suitability for acting as master in the network using antenna performance characteristics of each station in view of the antenna’s local environment; and enabling a station with the highest rank to be master.

Cisco moved for a dismissal on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) arguing that claim 6 of the patent is ineligible under § 101.

Alice step 1 requires a determination as to whether the claims as a whole are directed to an abstract idea.  The district court held that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of “ranking stations based on antenna performance characteristics and selecting the station with the highest rank to act as master in a network.” The Federal Circuit agreed and stated that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of selecting the highest ranked station. The general recitation of the familiar concepts of ranking and selecting leaves the claimed method untethered to any specific or concrete way of implementing it.

Uniloc argued that the claim here is like others that the Federal Circuit had held eligible. The Federal Circuit did not agree. In Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that claims to a “behavior-based virus scan” provided greater computer security and were thus directed to a patent-eligible improvement in computer functionality.  There, the claims required a “security profile that identifies suspicious code,” which required that the security profile “include the information about potentially hostile operations produced by a ‘behavior-based’ virus scan.”  The Federal Circuit there held the claimed security profile constituted an improvement over the functionality of the traditional “code-matching” systems, which only looked for the existence of known viruses. The claims there required a specific implementation of software that improved the computer’s functionality, and were therefore not directed to an abstract idea.

Similarly in SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that the claims were directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality—“providing a network defense system that monitors network traffic in real-time to automatically detect large-scale attacks.” The claims specifically required use of “network monitors in the enterprise network” to detect suspicious activity, generate reports of the activity, and automatically receive and integrate those reports. The representative claim improved the technical functioning of the computer and computer networks by reciting a specific technique for improving computer network security, and was not directed to an abstract idea.

In Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, the Federal Circuit held patent-eligible claims which recited a “specific method for navigating through three-dimensional electronic spread-sheets” thereby improving the computer’s functionality.

In Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, the Federal Circuit held the claims were not directed to an abstract idea because they specified a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors in order to more accurately calculate the position and orientation of an object on a moving platform.

Unlike the claims in these cases, claim 6 of the ’522 patent broadly claims solving the problem of master stations potentially having inefficient antennas by choosing the station with the best antenna. The claim does not specify any particular metric or method for ranking. The entirety of the claim is simply the abstract idea and nothing more. Thus, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of ranking stations using their antenna performance and choosing the best station as the master.

At Alice step two, we “consider the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.”

The district court held that the additional claimed features were well-understood, routine and conventional, and did not provide an inventive concept that would render the claim patent eligible. The Federal Circuit agreed. As the district court recognized, “neither the claim nor the specification provides for implementation of the abstract idea using anything other than existing, conventional technology.

Uniloc admitted that the ’522 patent uses known computer hardware and wireless protocols (like Bluetooth), but argues that its claimed method uses them in a new and improved way.

The only inventive concept is forming an ad-hoc network that enables the station in the piconet with the highest rank based on antenna performance characteristics to act as master.  According to the Federal Circuit, Uniloc’s only alleged inventive concept is coincident with the abstract idea itself. Thus, there are no “additional elements,” which “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.”  The Federal Circuit concluded that claim 6 of the ‘522 patent is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter and affirmed the district court.

The patentee may have had better luck if more details were recited in the claim.

ERICSSON V TCL, FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2020 (SOFTWARE PATENTS)

This case involves U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510 relating to securing mobile phones against improper access by apps.

Claim 1 recites:

1. A system for controlling access to a platform, the system comprising:

  • a platform having a software services component and an interface component, the interface component having at least one interface for providing access to the software services component for enabling application domain software to be installed, loaded, and run in the platform;
  • an access controller for controlling access to the software services component by a requesting application domain software via the at least one interface, the access controller comprising:
  • an interception module for receiving a request from the requesting application domain software to access the software services component;
  •  and a decision entity for determining if the request should be granted wherein the decision entity is a security access manager, the security access manager holding access and permission policies; and
  • wherein the requesting application domain software is granted access to the software services component via the at least one interface if the request is granted.

The Federal Circuit concluded that claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of controlling access to, or limiting permission to, resources. Although written in technical jargon, a close analysis of the claims reveals that they require nothing more than this abstract idea. By the plain language of claim 1, the “security access manager” and the “decision entity” are the same thing.  According to the specification, this combined decision entity/security access manager can further be the same as the “interception module.” Because the security access manager/decision entity/interception module is the only claimed component of the “access controller,” all four components collapse into simply “an access controller for controlling access” by “receiving a request” and then “determining if the request should be granted.” That bare abstract idea, controlling access to resources by receiving a request and determining if the request for access should be granted, is at the core of claim 1.

Neither of the remaining limitations altered the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of controlling access to resources. The first limitation recites “a platform having a software services component and an interface component,” for the ultimate goal of “enabling application domain software to be installed, loaded, and run in the platform.” ‘510 patent claim 1. This recitation of functional computer components does not specify how the claim “control[s] access to a platform,” nor does it direct the claim to anything other than that abstract idea. It merely provides standard components that are put to use via the “access controller” limitation. Similarly, the “wherein” limitation simply recites the necessary outcome of the abstract idea, “grant[ing] access … if the request is granted.”

The Federal Circuit, referring to Enfish, stated that the step one inquiry looks to the claim’s “character as a whole” rather than evaluating each claim limitation in a vacuum.

Ericsson made two arguments as to why the asserted claims are not directed to an abstract idea at Alice step one. Neither is persuasive. First, it argued that the idea of controlling access to resources is not an abstract idea because it does not resemble one previously recognized by the Supreme Court.

This argument was dismissed by the Federal Circuit.  Controlling access to resources is exactly the sort of process that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper,” which the Federal Circuit has repeatedly found unpatentable.

Second, Ericsson contended that its claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they “solve the specific computer problem … of controlling app access in resource-constrained mobile phones.”

The Federal Circuit disagreed. As an initial matter, the district court was incorrect to conclude that the claims of the ‘510 patent are limited to mobile platform technology,” and Ericsson is wrong to repeat that point.

Moreover, according to the Federal Circuit, the claims here do not have the specificity required to transform a claim from one claiming only a result to one claiming a way of achieving it.

In summary, the Federal Circuit wants to see, in the claims, greater details of how a computer problem is solved.

 

UNILOC V LG ELECTRONICS, FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2020 (SOFTWARE PATENTS)

Uniloc sued LG Electronics in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049. LG moved to dismiss Uniloc’s Complaint, arguing the claims of the ’049 patent are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. The lower court granted LG’s motion, determining that the asserted claims are directed to an abstract idea and do not recite an inventive concept.

The ’049 patent is directed to a communication system comprising a primary station (e.g., a base station) and at least one secondary station (e.g., a computer mouse or keyboard). In conventional systems, such as Bluetooth networks, two devices that share a common communication channel form ad hoc networks known as “piconets.” Joining a piconet requires the completion of two sets of procedures, namely an “inquiry” procedure and a “page” procedure. The inquiry procedure allows a primary station to identify secondary stations and it allows secondary stations to issue a request to join the piconet.

The page procedure in turn allows a primary station to invite secondary stations to join the piconet.   Together, it can take several tens of seconds to complete the inquiry and page procedures so that a device joins a piconet and is able to transfer user input to the primary station. Once a piconet is formed, the primary station “polls” secondary stations to determine whether they have data to share over the communication channel. Because many secondary stations are battery-operated, secondary stations may enter a “park” mode and cease active communications with the primary station to conserve power.  A secondary station in parked mode remains synchronized with the primary station, but it must be polled before it can leave park mode and actively communicate with the primary station.

In conventional systems, primary stations alternate between sending inquiry messages to identify new secondary stations and polling secondary stations already connected to the piconet, including parked devices,to determine whether they have information to transmit. Therefore, under the conventional polling process, a secondary station could experience delays of tens of seconds both in initially joining a piconet and in transmitting data after entering park mode.

The specification explains that the invention improves conventional communication systems by including a data field for polling as part of the inquiry message, thereby allowing primary stations to send inquiry messages and conduct polling simultaneously.

Claim 2 of the ’049 patent, which is representative, recites:

A primary station for use in a communications system comprising at least one secondary station, wherein means are provided

  • for broadcasting a series of inquiry mes-sages, each in the form of a plurality of predetermined data fields arranged ac-cording to a first communications protocol, and
  • for adding to each inquiry message prior to transmission an additional data field for polling at least one secondary station.

The Federal Circuit held that the claims at issue are directed to a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, namely the reduction of latency experienced by parked secondary stations in communication systems.

The Federal Circuit stated that, like the claims in DDR Holdings v Hotels.com, the claimed invention changes the normal operation of the communication system itself to “overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.”

BOZEMAN FINANCIAL LLC V FEDERAL RESERVE BANK, FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2020 (SOFTWARE PATENTS)

Bozeman Financial LLC appealed from a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding all of the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,754,640 and 8,768,840 ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.

Claim 1 of the ’840 patent is representative:

1. A computer implemented method for detecting fraud in financial transactions during a payment clearing process, said method comprising:

  • receiving through one of a payer bank and a third party, a first record of an electronic financial transaction from at least one of the following group: a payer, a point-of-sale terminal, an online account and a portable electronic device;
  • storing in a database accessible by each party to said payment clearing process of said electronic financial transaction, said first record of said electronic financial transaction, said first record comprising more than one parameter;
  • receiving at said database at least a second record of said electronic financial transaction from one or more of a payee bank and any other party to said payment clearing process as said transaction moves along said payment clearing process, wherein said second record comprises at least one parameter which is the same as said more than one parameter of said first record;
  • each of said first and second records received at said database comprise at least two of the same said more than one parameters;
  • determining by a computer when there is a match between at least two of said parameters of said second record of said first financial transaction received at said database and the same parameters of said first record of said financial transaction stored in said database, and wherein any party to said payment clearing process is capable of verifying said parameters at each point along said financial transaction payment clearing process;sending a notification to said payee bank participant with authorization to process said electronic financial transaction when said parameters match;
  • and sending a notification to said payee bank participant to not process said electronic financial transaction when said parameters do not match.

The Board determined that the ’640 patent’s claims are directed to the abstract idea of “collecting, displaying, and analyzing information to reconcile check information against a ledger.” The Board determined that the ’840 patent claims are directed to the abstract idea of “collecting and analyzing information for financial transaction fraud or error detection.”  The Board found that the claims do not contain an inventive concept to render them eligible under §101.

The Federal Circuit applied the two-step framework set forth in Alice to determine patent-eligibility under §101.

Considering Alice Step 1, the Federal Circuit stated that verifying financial documents to reduce transactional fraud is a fundamental business practice that, without more, is not eligible for patent protection.

The Federal Circuit stated that their recent decision in Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc. held claims like the claims of the ’840 patent ineligible. 931 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2019). In Solutran, the claims recited a method for electronic check processing.

Bozeman argued that the claimed method is a physical process that improves handling and processing of checks, not an abstract idea. It argued that because the process involves tangible steps, it cannot be an abstract idea, even if the claims additionally involve or include otherwise abstract concepts.

The Federal Circuit dismissed this argument.  As they explained in Solutran, “the physicality of the paper checks being processed and transported is not by itself enough to exempt the claims from being directed to an abstract idea.”

Considering Alice Step 2, the Federal Circuit stated that he technological components recited in claim 1 of the ’840 patent were conventional, off-the-shelf computer components.  Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, appears to require anything more than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, storage, network, and display technology for collecting the data related to financial transactions, and displaying the data to the users.

The Federal Circuit did not consider that a programmed computer becomes a new machine.  They also did not find that the claims met the machine-or-transformation test.

One must wonder if the outcome could have been different if the Federal Reserve Banks were not involved.  The Federal Reserve Banks do not believe in patents covering financial methods.  On the other hand, there are plenty of issued patents covering Bitcoin and blockchain.

CUSTOMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES, LLC V DISH NETWORK, FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2020 (SOFTWARE PATENTS)

Customedia appealed a decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office holding claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,719,090 and 9,053,494 ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

The patents both relate to a cable TV set-top box.  A cable distributor may provide customers with a cable set-top box with built-in storage sections that may be leased or sold to advertisers.

Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,719,090 is representative and recites:

1 A data delivery system for providing automatic delivery of multimedia data products from one or more multimedia data product providers, the system comprising:

  • a remote account transaction server for providing multimedia data products to an end user, at least one of the multimedia data products being specifically identified advertising data; and
  • a programmable local receiver unit for interfacing with the remote account transaction server to receive one or more of the multimedia data products and for processing and automatically recording the multimedia data products, said programmable lo-cal receiver unit including at least one individually controlled and reserved advertising data storage section adapted specifically for storing the specifically identified advertising data, said at least one advertising data storage section being monitored and controlled by said remote account transaction server and such that said specifically identified advertising data is delivered by said remote ac-count transaction server and stored in said at least one individually controlled and reserved advertising data storage section.

The Federal Circuit said that they must follow the  Supreme Court’s two-step framework for determining patent-eligibility under § 101 according to Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l.

At Alice step one, the Federal Circuit must determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.  in Alice, the Supreme Court made clear that the invocation of a computer does not necessarily transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. There, the Supreme Court held ineligible claims directed to a method of exchanging financial obligations using a computer system as a third-party intermediary. The Court explained that the claims were merely implemented “using some un-pecified, generic computer” and did not “purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself.

Customedia argued that its claims are patent-eligible because they provide for improvements to the functioning of computer systems.  The Federal Circuit disagreed.

By dedicating a section of the computer’s memory to advertising data, the claimed invention ensures memory is available for at least some advertising data. This does not, however, improve the functionality of the computer itself, according to the Federal Circuit.

Even if the court accepted Customedia’s assertions, the claimed invention merely improves the abstract concept of delivering targeted advertising using a computer only as a tool. This is not what the Supreme Court meant by improving the functioning of the computer itself, according to the Federal Circuit.

American Axle & Manufacturing Inc. v. Neapco Holdings, FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2019 (LAWS OF NATURE)

Even patent applications covering mechanical inventions can be invalidated using the same Alice Corp. v CLS case law used to invalidate software patents.

American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. sued Neapco alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,774,911.

The patent generally relates to a method for manufacturing driveline propeller shafts with liners that are designed to attenuate vibrations transmitted through a shaft assembly.

Bending mode vibration is a phenomenon wherein energy is transmitted longitudinally along the shaft and causes the shaft to bend at one or more locations. Torsion mode vibration is a phenomenon wherein energy is transmitted tangentially through the shaft and causes the shaft to twist. Shell mode vibration is a phenomenon wherein as standing wave is transmitted circumferentially about the shaft and causes the cross-section of the shaft to deflect or bend along one or more axes. These vibration modes correspond to different frequencies.

Claims 1 and 22 are representative and recite:

1. A method for manufacturing a shaft assembly of a driveline system, the driveline system further including a first driveline component and a second driveline component, the shaft assembly being adapted to transmit torque between the first driveline component and the second driveline component, the method comprising:

  • providing a hollow shaft member;
  • tuning at least one liner to attenuate at least two types of vibration transmitted through the shaft member; and
  • positioning the at least one liner within the shaft member such that the at least one liner is configured to damp shell mode vibrations in the shaft member by an amount that is greater than or equal to about 2%, and the at least one liner is also configured to damp bending mode vibrations in the shaft member, the at least one liner being tuned to within about ±20% of a bending mode natural frequency of the shaft assembly as installed in the driveline system.

22. A method for manufacturing a shaft assembly of a driveline system, the driveline system further including a first driveline component and a second driveline component, the shaft assembly being adapted to transmit torque between the first driveline component and the second driveline component, the method comprising:

  • providing a hollow shaft member;
  • tuning a mass and a stiffness of at least one liner, and
  • inserting the at least one liner into the shaft member;
  • wherein the at least one liner is a tuned resistive absorber for attenuating shell mode vibrations and wherein the at least one liner is a tuned reactive absorber for attenuating bending mode vibrations.

The district court construed the term tuning to mean “controlling the mass and stiffness of at least one liner to configure the liner to match the relevant frequency or frequencies.”  Neither party contested this construction.

According to the patent’s specification, prior art liners, weights, and dampers that were designed to individually attenuate each of the three propshaft vibration modes—bending, shell, and torsion—already existed. But these prior art damping methods were assertedly not suitable for attenuating two vibration modes simultaneously.

The district court concluded that the Asserted Claims as a whole are directed to laws of nature: Hooke’s law and friction damping.

The Federal Circuit’s analysis of 35 U.S.C. § 101 follows the Supreme Court’s two-step test established in Mayo and Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). At step one of the Mayo/Alice test, we ask whether the claims are directed to a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). If the claims are so directed, the Federal Circuit then asks whether the claims embody some “inventive concept”—i.e., whether the claims contain “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 ineligible concept itself.’”

AAM agreed that the selection of frequencies for the liners to damp the vibrations of the propshaft at least in part involves an application of Hooke’s law.Hooke’s law is a natural law that mathematically relates the mass and/or stiffness of an object to the frequency with which that object oscillates (vibrates). Here, both parties’ witnesses agreed that Hooke’s law undergirds the design of a liner so that it exhibits a desired damping frequency pursuant to the claimed invention. Neapco’s expert, Dr. Becker, stated that the tuning limitations claim “nothing more than Hooke’s law . . . [and/or] the law of nature / natural phenomenon for friction damping.”

AAM argued that the claims are not merely directed to Hooke’s law. AAM pointed to testimony suggesting that tuning a liner such that it attenuates two different vibration modes is a process that involves more than simple application of Hooke’s law.

The problem with AAM’s argument was that the solution to these desired results is not claimed in the patent. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that features that are not claimed are irrelevant as to step 1 or step 2 of the Mayo/Alice analysis.

This distinction between results and means is fundamental to the step 1 eligibility analysis, including in law-of-nature cases, not just abstract-idea cases.

The Federal Circuit stated that as to Mayo/Alice step 2, nothing in the claims qualifies as an “inventive concept” to transform the claims into patent eligible matter.

The Federal Circuit concluded that Claims 1 and 22 are not patent eligible.

As a patent drafting tip, claims of both software patents and mechanical patents should be drafted so as to include detail of how a problem is solved.  Claims should not just be directed to laws of nature, but as to how the solution is achieved.  In a software patent application, describe and claim some details of what’s under the hood (the algorithm) in a claim, not just the result.  Inventors:  give your patent attorney lots of details including flowcharts, in addition to screen shots. There is a common misconception that providing details in the specification means that the resulting patent will be too narrow. That is not true. The protection provided by a patent is determined by the claims, not the specification. A detailed specification does not necessarily mean narrow claims–instead, details in the specification provide the possibility of saving a patent application that is rejected as being patent-ineligible under Alice. Provide access to your programmers and require that the programmers cooperate with the patent attorney.

 

SOLUTRAN, INC. v ELAVON, INC., FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2019 (SOFTWARE PATENTS)

This decision involves U.S. Patent No. 8,311,945, assigned to Solutran, Inc.

The patent explains that in the past, the payee would transport the check to his or her own bank to be read and processed, then the payee’s bank would transport the check to the payor’s bank,where it also would be read and processed. At this point, the payor’s bank would debit the payor’s account and transfer the money to the payee’s bank, which would credit the payee’s account.

The digital age ushered in a faster approach to processing checks, where the transaction information—e.g., amount of the transaction, routing and account number—on the check is turned into a digital file at the merchant’s point of sale (POS) terminal.

The digital check information is sent electronically over the Internet or other network, and the funds are then transferred electronically from one account to another. By converting the check information into digital form, it no longer was always necessary to physically move the paper check from one entity to another to debit or credit the accounts. But retaining the checks was still useful for, among other things, verifying accuracy of the transaction data entered into the digital file.The patent also discloses a method proposed by the National Automated Clearing House Association (NACHA) for “back office conversion” where merchants scan their checks in a back office, typically at the end of the day, “instead of at the purchase terminal,” A scanner captures an image of the check, and MICR data from the check is stored with the image. An image file containing this information can be transferred to a bank or third-party payment processor.

The patent describes its invention as a system and method of electronically processing checks in which (1) data from the checks is captured at the point of purchase, (2) this data is used to promptly process a deposit to the merchant’s account, (3) the paper checks are moved elsewhere “for scanning and image capture,” and (4) “the image of the check is matched up to the data file.”  The proffered benefits include “improved funds availability”for merchants and allegedly “relieving merchants] of the task, cost, and risk of scanning and destroying the paper checks themselves, relying instead on a secure, high-volume scanning operation to obtain digital images of the checks.”  Solutran explains that its method allows merchants to get their accounts credited sooner, without having to wait for the check scanning step.

Claim 1 is representative and recites:

1. A method for processing paper checks, comprising:

  • a) electronically receiving a data file containing data captured at a merchant’s point of purchase, said data including an amount of a transaction associated with MICR information for each paper check, and said data file not including images of said checks;
  • b) after step a), crediting an account for the merchant;
  • c) after step b), receiving said paper checks and scanning said checks with a digital image scanner thereby creating digital images of said checks and, for each said check, associating said digital image with said check’s MICR information; and
  • d) comparing by a computer said digital images, with said data in the data file to find matches.

The (lower) district court concluded that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea and the patent was therefore patent-eligible. The district court found a previous covered business method (CBM) review of the patent by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) persuasive in reaching its determination. The Board issued a decision denying a petition as to a §101 challenge, concluding that claim 1 of the patent was not directed to an abstract idea. The Board reasoned that “the basic, core concept of independent claim 1 is a method of processing paper checks, which is more akin to a physical process than an abstract idea.”

To determine whether claimed subject matter is patent-eligible, the Federal Circuit applied the two-step framework explained in Alice v CLS.  First, the Federal Circuit is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept” such as an abstract idea.  Second, if so, the Federal Circuit is to “examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” At each step, the claims are considered as a whole.

With regard to Step One, the Federal Circuit agreed with U.S. Bank that the claims of the patent are directed to an abstract idea. The Federal Circuit concluded that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of crediting a merchant’s account as early as possible while electronically processing a check.  The Federal Circuit noted that they had previously ruled that certain transaction claims performed in a particular order or sequence are directed to abstract ideas in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC.  In Ultramercial, the claims at issue were drawn to a method for distribution of copyrighted content over the Internet including the steps of receiving media from a content provider, selecting an ad, offering the media to the consumer in exchange for watching the ad, displaying the ad, then allowing the consumer to access the media. The Federal Circuit in Ultramercial determined that the ordered combination of steps recited “an abstraction—an idea, having no particular concrete or tangible form.” Id.at 715. We defined the abstract idea as “showing an advertisement be-fore delivering free content.  Because the innovative aspect of the claimed invention in Ultramercial was an entrepreneurial rather than a technological one, the Federal Circuit deemed that invention patent-ineligible.

The Federal Circuit stated that, aside from the timing of the account crediting step, the ’945 patent claims recite elements similar to those in Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAss’n. There, they held that a method of extracting and then processing information from hard copy documents, including paper checks, was drawn to the abstract idea of collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and storing that recognized data in a memory. In Content Extraction, the Federal Circuit explained that the concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known; indeed, humans have always performed these functions. Here, too, the claims recite basic steps of electronic check processing. In its background, the ’945 patent explains that “there has been an industry transition to the electronic processing of checks, including the recordation of the data… presented by the check into a digital format which can then be transferred electronically.” It had become standard for the merchant to capture the check’s transaction amount and MICR data at the point of purchase. Further, the patent’s background explains that verifying the accuracy of the transaction information stored in the digital file against the check was already common.

The Federal Circuit then analogized to other prior decisions.  Crediting a merchant’s account as early as possible while electronically processing a check is a concept similar to those determined to be abstract by the Supreme Court in Bilski v. Kappos, and Alice itself. In Bilski, the Supreme Court determined that claims directed to “the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk” recited “a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce and taught in any introductory finance class” and therefore “an unpatentable abstract idea.”  In Alice, the Supreme Court deemed “a method of exchanging financial obligations between two parties using a third-party intermediary to mitigate settlement risk” to be an abstract idea.  The desire to credit a merchant’s account as soon as possible is an equally long-standing commercial practice. Solutran argued that the claims “as a whole” are not directed to an abstract idea. The ’945 patent articulates two benefits of its invention: (1) “improved funds availability” because the merchant’s account is credited before the check is scanned or verified; and (2) relieving merchants of the task, cost, and risk of scanning and destroying paper checks by out-sourcing those tasks. The only advance recited in the asserted claims is thus crediting the merchant’s account before the paper check is scanned.  The Federal Circuit concluded that this is an abstract idea.

This is not a situation where the claims “are directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate”as in cases such as Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.  Enfish is an example of a software patent that was held to be patent-eligible.  Patent applicants considering filing a new patent application should always ask themselves whether their invention can be framed in terms of somehow improving operation of the computer.

The physicality of the paper checks being processed and transported is not by itself enough to exempt the claims from being directed to an abstract idea. As the Federal Circuit explained in In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018), “the abstract idea exception does not turn solely on whether the claimed invention comprises physical versus mental steps.” In fact, “[t]he claimed methods in Bilski and Alice also recited actions that occurred in the physical world.”

Similarly, the Federal Circuit has determined that a method for voting that involved steps of printing and handling physical election ballots, Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Sys. & Software LLC, 887 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and a method of using a physical bankcard, Smart Sys. Innova-tions, LLC v. Chi.Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017), were abstract ideas. And the Supreme Court has concluded that diagnostic methods that involve physical administration steps are directed to a natural law. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 92. The physical nature of processing paper checks in this case does not require a different result, where the claims simply recite conventional actions in a generic way (e.g., capture data for a file, scan check, move check to a second location, such as a back room) and do not purport to improve any underlying technology.

The district court’s and Solutran’s reliance on the paper checks being processed in two“different location[s]”via two paths as preventing the claims from being directed to an abstract idea is also misplaced. The claims on their face are broad enough to allow the transaction data to be captured at the merchant’s point of purchase and the checks to be scanned and compared in the merchant’s back office. The location of the scanning and comparison—whether it occurs down the hallway, down the street, or across the city—does not detract from the conclusion that these claims are, at bottom, directed to getting the merchant’s account credited from a customer’s purchase as soon as possible, which is an abstract idea.

With regard to Step Two of the Alice test, the Federal Circuit disagreed with the district court that the patent claims “contain a sufficiently transformative inventive concept so as to be patent eligible.” Even when viewed as a whole, these claims “do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself” or “effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.” (see Alice v CLS).  To the contrary, as the claims in Ultramercial did, the claims of the ’945 patent “simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with routine, conventional activity.” As was noted above, the background of the ’945 patent describes each individual step in claim 1 as being conventional. Reordering the steps so that account crediting occurs before check scanning (as opposed to the other way around) represents the abstract idea in the claim, making it insufficient to constitute an inventive concept.  Any remaining elements in the claims, including use of a scanner and computer and “routine data-gathering steps” (i.e.,receipt of the data file),have been deemed insufficient by the Federal Circuit in the past to constitute an inventive concept.

To the extent Solutran argues that these claims are patent-eligible because they are allegedly novel and non-obvious,  the Federal Circuit has previously explained that merely reciting an abstract idea by itself in a claim—even if the idea is novel and non-obvious—is not enough to save it from ineligibility.  See, e.g., Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016)

Solutran also argued that its claims pass the machine-or-transformation test—i.e., “transformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing.’” While the Supreme Court has explained that the machine-or-trans-formation test can provide a “useful clue” in the second step of Alice, passing the test alone is insufficient to overcome Solutran’s failings under step two.  Merely using a general-purpose computer and scanner to perform conventional activities in the way they always have, as the claims do here, does not amount to an inventive concept. Because the claims of the ’945 patent recite the abstract idea of using data from a check to credit a merchant’s account before scanning the check, and because the claims do not contain an inventive concept sufficient to transform this abstract idea into a patent-eligible application, the claims were held to not be directed to patent-eligible subject matter.

In summary, using conventional hardware, such as a scanner, in a conventional manner in method claim is not sufficient to make a claim patent-eligible. In addition, the Bilski “machine or transformation” test is dead and should not be relied upon.

TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS, LLC, FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2019 (SOFTWARE PATENTS)

This decision involves Trading Technologies U.S. Patent Nos. 7,533,056; 7,212,999; and 7,904,374 covering graphical user interfaces for electronic trading.

U.S. Patent Nos. 7,533,056 and 7,212,999 disclose a user interface for an electronic trading system that allows a re-mote trader to view trends in the orders for an item, and provides the trading information in an easy to see and interpret graphical format.  U.S. Patent No. 7,904,374 discloses a display and trading method to ensure fast and accurate execution of trades by displaying market depth on a vertical or horizontal plane, which fluctuates logically up or down, left or right across the plane as the market prices fluctuate.

Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,212,999 is representative and recites:

A computer based method for facilitating the placement of an order for an item and for displaying transactional information to a user regarding the buying and selling of items in a system where orders comprise a bid type or an offer type, and an order is generated for a quantity of the item at a specific value, the method comprising:

  • displaying a plurality of bid indicators, each corresponding to at least one bid for a quantity of the item, each bid indicator at a location along a first scaled axis of prices corresponding to a price associated with the at least one bid;
  • displaying a plurality of offer indicators, each corresponding to at least one offer for a quantity of the item, each offer indicator at a location along the first scaled axis of prices corresponding to a price associated with the at least one offer;
  • receiving market information representing a new order to buy a quantity of the item for a specified price, and in response to the received market information, generating a bid indicator that corresponds to the quantity of the item bid for and placing the bid indicator along the first scaled axis of prices corresponding to the specified price of the bid;
  • receiving market information representing a new order to sell a quantity of the item for a specified price, and in response to the received market information, generating an offer indicator that corresponds to the Quantity of the item for which the offer is made and placing the offer indicator along the first scaled axis of prices corresponding to the specified price of the offer;
  • displaying an order icon associated with an order by the user for a particular quantity of the item;
  • selecting the order icon and moving the order icon with a pointer of a user input device to a location associated with a price along the first scaled axis of prices;
  • and sending an order associated with the order icon to an electronic trading exchange, wherein the order is of a bid type or an offer type and the order has a plurality of order parameters comprising the particular quantity of the item and the price corresponding to the location at which the order icon was moved.

Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056 is similar and recites:

A method of operation used by a computer for displaying transactional information and facilitating trading in a system where orders comprise a bid type or an offer type, the method comprising:

  • receiving bid and offer information for a product from an electronic exchange, the bid and offer information indicating a plurality of bid orders and a plurality of offer orders for the product;
  • displaying a plurality of bid indicators representing quantity associated with the plurality of bid orders, the plurality of bid indicators being displayed at locations cor-responding to prices of the plurality of bid orders along a price axis;
  • displaying a plurality of offer indicators representing quantity associated with the plurality of offer orders, the plurality of of-fer indicators being displayed at locations corresponding to prices of the plurality of-fer orders along the price axis;
  • receiving a user input indicating a default quantity to be used to determine a quantity for each of a plurality of orders to be placed by the user at one or more price levels;
  • receiving a user input indicating a desired price for an order to be placed by the user, the desired price being specified by selection of one of a plurality of locations corresponding to price levels along the price axis; and
  • sending the order for the default quantity at the desired price to the electronic exchange.

Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,904,374 recites:

A method for facilitating trade order entry, the method comprising:

  • receiving, by a computing device, market data for a commodity, the market data com-prising a current highest bid price and a current lowest ask price available for the commodity;
  • identifying, by the computing device, a plurality of sequential price levels for the commodity based on the market data, where the plurality of sequential price levels includes the current highest bid price and the current lowest ask price;
  • displaying, by the computing device, a plurality of graphical locations aligned along an axis, where each graphical location is configured to be selected by a single action of a user input device to send a trade order to the electronic exchange, where a price of the trade order is based on the selected graphical location;
  • mapping, by the computing device, the plurality of sequential price levels to the plurality of graphical locations, where each graphical location corresponds to one of the plurality of sequential price levels, where each price level corresponds to at least one of the plurality of graphical locations, and where mapping of the plurality of sequential price levels does not change at a time when at least one of the current highest bid price and the current lowest ask price changes; and
  • setting a price and sending the trade order to the electronic exchange in response to receiving by the computing device commands based on user actions consisting of: (1) placing a cursor associated with the user input device over a desired graphical location of the plurality of graphical locations and (2) selecting the desired graphical location through a single action of the user input device

The Federal Circuit agreed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Appeals Board that these claims are directed to a covered business method and thus CBM review was appropriate.  The Federal Circuit found that they were all eligible for covered business method (CBM) review. In a CBM review, a patent can be attacked under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being non-patent eligible after an analysis in accordance with Alice v CLS Bank.  Having found that the claims were eligible for a CBM review, the Federal Circuit then performed an Alice analysis to determine if the software patents for graphical user interfaces were patent-eligible.

For U.S. Patent No. 7,212,999, the Federal Circuit first noted that at Alice step one, they must “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” Under this inquiry, they evaluate “the focus of the claimed advance over the prior art” to determine if the character of the claim as a whole, considered in light of the specification, is directed to excluded subject matter.

The Appeals Board at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office determined claim 1 is directed to “the abstract idea of graphing (or displaying) bids and offers to assist a trader to make an order.” The Federal Circuit agreed. The claim’s preamble states that it is a “computer based method for facilitating the placement of an order for an item and for displaying transactional information to a user regarding the buying and selling of items.” The method steps require “displaying” a plurality of bid and of-fer indicators along a “scaled axis of prices,” “receiving market information,” displaying that information along the axis, and “displaying” information pertaining to a user’s order. This essentially describes receiving information, which the specification admits was already available to “market makers,” and displaying that information. The Federal Circuit noted that they have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas, citing to Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.

Claim 1 also recites sending an order by “selecting” and “moving” an order icon to a location along the price axis.  According to the Federal Circuit, this does not change our determination that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. As the Board determined, placing an order based on displayed market information is a fundamental economic practice. The fact that the claims add a degree of particularity as to how an order is placed in this case does not impact the analysis at Alice step one.

The fact that this is a “computer-based method” does not render the claims non-abstract. The specification indicates the claimed GUI is displayed on any computing device. As a general rule, “the collection, organization, and display of two sets of information on a generic display device is abstract.” Relying principally on Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc.,  Trading Tech argued the claimed invention provides an improvement in the way a computer operates. The Federal Circuit did not agree. The claims of the ’999 patent do not improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem. Instead, they recite a purportedly new arrangement of generic information that assists traders in processing information more quickly. The Federal Circuit concluded that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of graphing bids and offers to assist a trader to make an order.

At step 2 of the Alice analysis, the Federal Circuit is to consider the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent eligible application.”   The Board held that the claims do not contain an inventive concept. It determined that receiving market in-formation is simply routine data gathering, and displaying information as indicators along a scaled price axis is well-understood, routine, conventional activity that does not add something significantly more to the abstract idea. It likewise determined that selecting and moving an icon is well-understood, routine, conventional activity.  It considered the elements both individually and as an ordered combination and concluded they did not transform the claim into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The Federal Circuit agreed.

With regard to U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056, like the ’999 patent, the Board at step one determined claim 1 is directed to “the abstract idea of graphing (or displaying) bids and offers to assist a trader to make an order.” The Federal Circuit agreed.

At step two, the Board held the elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, do not recite an inventive concept. Trading Technologies argued the claims improve computer functionality by improving on the intuitiveness and efficiency of prior GUI tools. The specification makes clear that this invention helps the trader process information more quickly. This is not an improvement to computer functionality.  The Federal Circuit saw no merit to Trading Tech’s argument.

Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,904,374, at step one, the Appeals Board held that claim 1 of the patent is directed to the abstract idea of receiving user input to send a trade order. It explained that claim 1 only minimally requires collecting and analyzing information and includes no requirement that any of that information is displayed. This is because the claims require “displaying . . . graphical locations along an axis” but do not require the graphical locations to display the price levels that are mapped to them. Based on the Board’s understanding, the graphical locations need not provide any information to the user.

At step two, the Board held the elements of claim 1, individually or as an ordered combination, do not add an inventive concept. It noted that the specification discloses that the invention can be implemented “on any existing or future terminal or device” and describes the programming as insignificant. It also noted that Trading Technologies acknowledged that conventional GUIs for electronic trading permitted a trader to send an order electronically. Trading Tech repeats its argument that claim 1 improves computer functionality by solving technological problems with prior art electronic trading interfaces. But as previously explained, claim 1 does not solve any purported technological problem. The Federal Circuit agreed with the Board.

This case is unfortunate because a previous, non-precedential, Trading Technologies decision found a patent covering a stock trading graphical user interface to be patent-eligible.  That decision gave hope to patent practitioners that software could be patentable if graphical user interfaces were described and claimed.  Some commentators argued that many or even all graphical user interfaces should be patentable for reasons similar to those described in that case.  Unfortunately, the different judges of the Federal Circuit have different understandings of Alice, leading to the case law being inconsistent.  This decision makes clear that the only safe harbor is if there is unique hardware or if the software somehow improves operation of the computer.  These claims were fairly narrow but the software limitations were not enough to carry the day.

Trading Technologies argued that because non-precedential decisions of this court held that other Trading Technologies patents were for technological inventions or claimed eligible subject matter, this court should have too. The Federal Circuit declined, stating that they are not bound by non-precedential decisions at all, much less ones to different patents, different specifications, or different claims. Each panel must evaluate the claims presented to it.  It is unfortunate that the previous Trading Technologies decision was not precedential but this one was.

ChargePOINT, INC. v. SemaCONNECT, INC., FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2019 (SOFTWARE PATENTS)

This is a software patent decision in which the court ignored a substantial amount of hardware in the patent claim and found that the claim was directed to an abstract idea and therefore invalid.  In the Alice Supreme Court decision, the main issue was whether the patentee took a well known financial method and merely automated it on a computer.  In most post-Alice decisions, the computer was largely ignored in determining whether the claim was directed to an abstract idea and therefore unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101, unless there was an improvement in operation of the computer.

The ChargePOINT case relates to U.S. Patent No. 8,138,715; 8,432,131; 8,450,967; and 7,956,570 for charging stations for electric vehicles. The battery in an electric vehicle is recharged by connecting the vehicle to an electrical outlet.  At the time the patent application was filed, this process typically required hours and was often done overnight or while the electric vehicle was parked for a significant amount of time.

Businesses such as restaurants, apartments, and shopping centers have installed electric vehicle charging stations for the convenience of their customers. A shopping center may prefer to offer free vehicle charging to its customers to encourage customers to continue shopping.

Utility companies have different concerns in mind. Generally, the supply of electricity available from a power grid may vary, and in some cases the grid may lack sufficient electricity to meet demand. In addition to pulling electricity from a local electricity grid, electric vehicles may also supply electricity to the grid.

ChargePoint contends that its inventors created improved charging stations that address the various needs inherent in electric vehicle charging. This was accomplished by creating networked charging stations. According to ChargePoint, this network connectivity allows the stations to be managed from a central location, allows drivers to locate charging stations in advance, and allows all users to interact intelligently with the electricity grid.

Claim 1 of the ‘715 patent is representative and recites:

1. An apparatus, comprising:

  • a control device to turn electric supply on and off to enable and disable charge transfer for electric vehicles;
  • a transceiver to communicate requests for charge transfer with a remote server and receive communications from the remote server via a data control unit that is connected to the remote server through a wide area network; and
  • a  controller, coupled with the control device and the transceiver, to cause the control device to turn the electric supply on based on communication from the remote server.

The Federal Circuit noted that it is clear from the language of claim 1 that the claim involves an abstract idea—namely, the abstract idea of communicating requests to a remote server and receiving communications from that server, i.e., communication over a network. But at step one, “it is not enough to merely identify a patent-ineligible concept underlying the claim; we must determine whether that patent-ineligible concept is what the claim is `directed to‘, citing Thales Visionix.  In trying to discern what the claim is directed to, the Federal Circuit considered the problem being solved. The problem identified by the patentee, as stated in the specification, was the lack of a communication network that would allow drivers, businesses, and utility companies to interact efficiently with the charging stations.

The Federal Circuit stated that, looking at the problem identified in the patent, as well as the way the patent describes the invention, the specification suggests that the invention of the patent is nothing more than the abstract idea of communication over a network for interacting with a device, applied to the context of electric vehicle charging stations.  The Federal Circuit then agreed with SemaConnect that, based on the claim language, claim 1 would preempt the use of any networked charging stations.   The Federal Circuit stated that the inventors here had the good idea to add networking capabilities to existing charging stations to facilitate various business interactions. But that is where they stopped, and that is all they patented. The Federal Circuit therefore held that claim 1 is “directed to” an abstract idea.

I have a degree in electrical engineering and that sounds like a lot of hardware to me, in addition to just a computer or microprocessor.  35 U.S.C. 101 states that: 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.

This sure sounds like a machine.  The judicial exception that prevents abstract ideas from being patented relates to the concern that we don’t want to have patents covering mental steps or laws of nature or natural phenomenon.   This claim covers none of these things.

The main sin of the patentee is that their claim was arguably too broad.  But if that was the case, the claim should also be obvious and that is where the court should have focused its analysis.  Since it was a “good idea,” maybe it wasn’t so obvious.

ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., v. HTC AMERICA, INC., HTC CORPORATION, FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2018 (SOFTWARE PATENTS))

Ancora Technologies, Inc.’s U.S. Patent 6,411,941 is entitled “Method of Restricting Software Operation Within a License Limitation.”  The patent describes and claims methods of limiting a computer’s running of software not authorized for that computer to run.

Ancora brought this action against HTC America and HTC Corporation alleging infringement of the patent.  HTC moved to dismiss on the ground that the patent’s claims are invalid because their subject matter is ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C § 101.  The district court granted HTC’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the claims are directed to, and ultimately claim no more than, an abstract idea.

Claim 1 is representative and recites:

1.  A method of restricting software operation within a license for use with a computer including
an erasable, non-volatile memory area of a BIOS of the computer, and a volatile memory area; the method comprising the steps of:
     selecting a program residing in the volatile memory,
     using an agent to set up a verification structure in the erasable, non-volatile memory of the BIOS, the verification structure accommodating data that includes at least one license record,
     verifying the program using at least the verification structure from the erasable non-volatile memory of the BIOS, and
     acting on the program according to the verification.
The Federal Circuit cited some cases in which software was found to be patentable.  They noted that in Enfish, they held that the patent claims were not directed to an abstract idea because the claimed self-referential tables improved the way that computers operated and handled data. The claimed self-referential tables allowed the more efficient launching and adaptation of databases.
In Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., the Federal Circuit drew a similar conclusion about claims focused on a specific improvement in computer memory.  The district court had determined that the claims were directed to the abstract concept of categorical data storage.  The Federal Circuit determined that the district court had erred because the patent was specifically “directed to an improved computer memory system, not to the abstract idea of categorical data storage,” and therefore was not directed to an abstract idea.  The claims were specific and limited to certain types of data to be stored.
In Finjan, the Federal Circuit held that claims to a “behavior-based virus scan” were a specific improvement in computer functionality and hence not directed to an abstract idea.  The claimed technique of scanning enabled “more flexible and nuanced virus filtering” and detection of potentially dangerous code.  The claims thus were directed to “a non-abstract improvement in computer functionality” having the benefit of achieving greater computer security.
In Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that claims to a method for making websites easier to navigate on a small-screen device were not directed to an abstract idea.
In Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, the Federal Circuit held that claims to “a specific method for navigating through three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets” were “not directed to an abstract idea.”  The method provided “a specific solution to then-existing technological problems in computers and prior art electronic spreadsheets.”  The navigation difficulties of prior-art spreadsheets were addressed “in a particular way—by providing a highly intuitive, user-friendly interface with familiar notebook tabs for navigating the three dimensional worksheet environment.”  The Federal Circuit distinguished other cases in which we had held claims to be “simply directed to displaying a graphical user interface or collecting, manipulating, or organizing information”; the claims in Data Engine, they concluded, recite “a specific structure (i.e., notebook tabs) within a particular spread-sheet display that performs a specific function (i.e., navigating within a three-dimensional spreadsheet).”
In accordance with those precedents, the Federal Circuit concluded that claim 1 of the patent is not directed to an abstract idea.  Improving security—here, against a computer’s unauthorized use of a program—can be a non-abstract computer-functionality improvement if done by a specific technique that departs from earlier approaches to solve a specific computer problem, as was the case in Finjan.
The claimed method here specifically identifies how that functionality improvement is effectuated in an assertedly unexpected way: a structure containing a license record is stored in a particular, modifiable, non-volatile portion of the computer’s BIOS, and the structure in that memory location is used for verification by interacting with the distinct computer memory that contains the program to be verified. In this way, the claim addresses a technological problem with computers: vulnerability of license-authorization software to hacking.   In short, claim 1 of the ’941 patent is directed to a solution to a computer- functionality problem: an improvement in computer functionality that has “the specificity required to transform a claim from one claiming only a result to one claiming a way of achieving it.”  It therefore passes muster under Alice step one , as it is not directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.