by Dennis Crouch
Hantz Software v. Sage Intacct (Fed. Cir. 2023) (non-precedential)
The district court sided with the defendant Sage, dismissing the complaint for lack of eligibility. In a short opinion, the Federal Circuit has largely affirmed, but made an important caveat — that the district court held only that claims 1 and 31-33 are invalid.
[W]e agree that the operative complaint asserted infringement of only claims 1 and 31–33 of each asserted patent, and because Sage did not file any counterclaim of its own (instead, it simply moved to dismiss Hantz’s complaint), we conclude that the ineligibility judgment should apply to only claims 1 and 31–33 of the asserted patents. We therefore vacate the district court’s judgment insofar as it held any claim other than claims 1 and 31–33 of each asserted patent ineligible and affirm in all other respects.
Slip Op. Despite the limit here, claim preclusion will prevent Hantz from reasserting any of the remaining claims against Sage. Non-mutual collateral estoppel should also apply here to to prevent Hantz from asserting any of the claims against a third party — unless the claims are meaningfully distinct on eligibility grounds from those already adjudged to be invalid. Normally, collateral estoppel only applies to issues actually litigated, but in the patent context, the Federal Circuit has ruled that it may also apply to non-litigated claims when the differences do not “materially alter the question of invalidity.” Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLC, 735 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013); MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF CRESPE LLC, 880 F.3d 1373, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Asking “whether the remaining claims present materially different issues that alter the question of patentability”).
Asserted US8055560 claims a method of Account Payable Accounting with the following steps:
- at a processor, recording a multi-company voucher with the multi-company accounting system, the interface user entering financial data into the multi-company accounting system via the computer arrangement including:
- entering a voucher total money amount; and
- entering input voucher detail lines, each of the input voucher detail lines having an entered account associated with one of a plurality of companies of a multi-company group and an amount of money, at least two of the input voucher detail lines being associated with two distinct companies of the multi-company group, wherein the distinct companies are affiliated with each other and wherein each uses the multi-company accounting system for tracking money flow and balancing balance sheets for their respective accounting operations;
- at the processor, automatically adding via the multi-company accounting system at least a pair of multi-company generated balancing lines associated with the multi-company voucher for balancing money owed by each of the distinct companies to define an outstanding balance associated with each of the distinct companies, thereby keeping Accounts Payable for each of the distinct companies in balance;
- at the processor, creating a payment for paying the multi-company voucher including the interface user entering an amount of the payment into the multi-company accounting system via the computer arrangement; and
- at the processor, recording the payment with the multi-company accounting system to reduce the outstanding balances for the distinct companies including the multi-company accounting system automatically adding at least a pair of multi-company generated Due To/Due From lines as Due To/Due From entries to balance the money owed between the distinct companies, thereby keeping Accounts Payable for each of the distinct companies in balance.
It never ceases to amaze watching one company scream to high you-know-where that another company’s patent claims are ineligible . . . while screaming to the very same high you-know-where that their own similar / obvious variations patent claims are eligible.
Hypocrisy reins.
Why do courts let these hypocrites get away with it?
Why indeed.
“Why do courts let these hypocrites get away with it?”
Because the attorneys don’t raise the issue and make the arguments in a compelling manner.
Why is that, do you think?
News flash: the issue of companies making arguments for invalidity that directly contradict arguments made before the PTO to secure patents in their own portfolio is old. Also, it’s not much of a winning card for the typical patent h uf f er (just sayin’).
^^^ your animus is far more on display than you think.
Hypocrisy cuts two ways and you FEEL only an anti-patent emotion.
Someone is huffing something (hint: that would be you).
>Hypocrisy reins.
Alternative explanation: Section 101 is highly fact dependent…
…which is why we let judges decide it, not juries /sigh
OC – don’t you have that the other way around (facts for juries rather than judges)…?
Maybe I should have used the /sarc tag instead of the /sigh tag
Seems to me the purported invention is a useful process.
Who is the PHOSITA here? Because if it’s a computer programmer, implementing that flow is beyond trivial. If it’s an accountant, choosing how to apply partial payments to different accounts is beyond trivial. To a programming accountant who isn’t a very good programmer or accountant? Issue of material fact?
By the way, what’s the invention anyway? The process of applying partial payments, or of using a computer to apply payments? Some of each? Must be.
One of the dependent claims recites giving the CEO of one of the district companies a big lollipop so it’s totally not abstract.
What a magnificent j o k e of a patent. This was filed around 2010 and granted not too long thereafter. Check out the preamble to claim 33:
“ 33. A computer-readable storage medium comprising a set of instructions … the set of instructions to direct a processor to perform acts of:”
Golly, it’s almost as if the super smart people who “invented” this stuff believe that software is just …instructions for carrying out logical processes on data. Where would they get an idea like that?
Instructions aren’t eligible for parenting. And they never were.
“ Instructions aren’t eligible for parenting”
FEEL THE POWER OF AI!
You (badly) parsed that claim language.
Of course, you already knew that….
“unless the claims are meaningfully distinct on eligibility grounds from those already adjudged to be invalid.”
Sorry no — there is simply just too much rope in the Gordian Knot, and a different panel may easily find eligibility with NO change in facts pertaining to the other claims.
Hey – don’t get upset with me – this is the doing of the CAFC.
Comments are closed.