As its name suggests, the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) is designed to substantially overturn the Supreme Court's decisions in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Together those cases created a firestorm of invalid patents and challenges for the patent office and patent holders alike. The bipartisan proposal was introduced in the Senate (Coons/Tillis) earlier this term and most recently introduced to the US House of Representatives (Kiley/Peters). Although Alice and Mayo doctrine created substantial confusion, much of that confusion has now died down in the past decade.* The bigger issue is that it is substantially harder to obtain patents and easier to invalidate issued patents -- particularly in cases where the invention lies in software or diagnostic methods. This post examines the proposed PERA and its potential impact -- along with providing a bit of data.
* Although the extreme confusion is gone, there is still plenty to go around. A case in point is the Federal Circuit's September 3, 2024 decision in BBiTV v. Amazon. In that case, the court showed its linguistic flexibility in distinguishing the claimed user interface (deemed ineligible) from those in Core Wireless and Data Engine (deemed eligible).
For over 150 years, "user interfaces" have been a staple of patent protection, evolving from the physical realm of tool handles and knobs to today's digital screens. Although tangible interface elements continue be patented as components of larger systems, the market shift towards on-screen interfaces has been paralleled with the anti-eligibility shift in Mayo and Alice. The Federal Circuit recently waded into these murky waters in Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 23-1107 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 3, 2024), examining the patent eligibility of electronic programming guides and content recommendation systems. Affirming a decision by Judge Albright, the appellate panel held that the claimed inventions lacked eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, distinguishing some prior GUI cases that sided with the patentee.
The Federal Circuit recently decided the en banc design patent case of LKQ v. GM, but the court has not issued an en banc decision in a utility patent case since 2018. There are currently four interesting petitions pending before the court.
Eolas is seeking a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court -- hoping that the court will overturn the Federal Circuit's decision invalidating its distributed computing (WWW) claims as ineligible under Alice Corp. and Mayo and ostensibly under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The petition presents three key questions:
This may be a useful case for patent prosecutors to cite to the USPTO because it creates a strong dividing line for the printed matter doctrine -- applying the doctrine only to cases where the claims recite the communicative content of information.
In this decision, the Federal Circuit partially reversed a PTAB invalidity finding against several IOEngine patent claims. The most interesting portion of the opinion focuses on the printed matter doctrine. Under the doctrine, certain "printed matter" is given no patentable weight because it is deemed to fall outside the scope of patentable subject matter. C R Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., 979 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2020). In this case though the Federal Circuit concluded that the Board erred in giving no weight to IOEngine's claim limitations requiring "encrypted communications" and "program code."
The printed matter doctrine a unique and somewhat amorphous concept in patent law that straddles the line between patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the novelty and non-obviousness requirements of §§ 102 and 103.
Human clinical trials play an essential role in the discovery, development, and regulatory approval of innovative drugs, and federal law mandates the public disclosure of these trials. Pharmaceutical innovators are voicing concern that these disclosures are increasingly being used as prior art to invalidate patents arising out of, or otherwise relating to, these trials, in a manner that threatens to disincentivize investment in pharmaceutical innovation. A recent Federal Circuit decision, Salix Pharms., Ltd. v. Norwich Pharms. Inc., illustrates the concern. In Salix, a divided panel upheld a district court decision to invalidate pharmaceutical method of treatment claims for obviousness based on a clinical study protocol published on the ClinicalTrials.gov. website. The case garnered amicus curiae briefs filed by several innovative pharmaceutical companies in support of the patent owner, Salix Pharmaceuticals.
In 1931, the United States Supreme Court decided a landmark case on the patentability of inventions, De Forest Radio Co. v. General Electric Co., 283 U.S. 664 (1931), amended, 284 U.S. 571 (1931). The case involved a patent infringement suit over an improved vacuum tube used in radio communications. While the case predated the codification of the nonobviousness requirement in 35 U.S.C. § 103 as part of the Patent Act of 1952, it nonetheless applied a similar requirement for "invention."
I wanted to review the case because it is one relied upon in the recent Vanda v. Teva petition, with the patentee arguing that the court's standard from 1931 has been relaxed by the Federal Circuit's "reasonable expectation of success" standard. The decision also provides an interesting case study in the way that the court seems to blend considerations of obviousness and
In Rady v. The Boston Consulting Group, Inc., No. 2022-2218 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 27, 2024), the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a patent infringement lawsuit, holding that the asserted claims of Rady's US10469250 were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The patent, owned by Max Rady, patent describes scanning a physical item, determining its unique pattern of imperfections (i.e., "signature"), and recording that signature to a blockchain if not previously registered.
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”).
I've become somewhat callous toward patent eligibility jurisprudence and so was surprised when I read the Federal Circuit's decision in ADASA Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 55 F.4th 900 (Fed. Cir. Dec 16, 2022). The case concluded that constructively dividing a fixed-length binary number into different sub-portions was not an abstract idea. Now, the accused infringer has asked the Supreme Court for review.
ADASA's US Patent 9,798,967 is directed toward an RFID chip "encoded with a unique object number." This object number as various blocks pre-allocated to identify the selling-company, product reference, and serial number as shown below. The serial number has a unique feature of being divided into a section of "most significant bits" (MSBs) and "least significant bits" (LSBs). This division between MSBs and LSBs help in the allocation of unique serial numbers in a distributed production system. The basic approach:
A product-line will be exclusively allocated a particular MSB and all possible accompanying LSBs. It will then enable RFID chips using the allocated MSB and then sequentially incrementing the LSB.
A separate product line might also be simultaneously enabling other other chips. To ensure no overlap in serial numbers, the second-line will be allocated a different MSB.
The result then is that we can guarantee that each chip has a unique serial number despite parallel production lines.
The claims do not appear to include any novel features other than this constructed division between bits in a binary number. (Claim 1, is reproduced below). In its petition, the adjudged infringer relies heavily on the old cases of Benson and Flook to argue that the setup here lacks eligibility.
Question presented:
Radio Frequency Identification Device (RFID) tags are encoded with lengthy serial numbers that uniquely identify particular items. The patent at issue in this case designates the leading bits in a binary serial number as “the most significant bits,” and directs that all serial numbers in an allocated block begin with the same “most significant bits.”
The question presented is whether that claim, by subdividing a serial number into “most significant bits” that are assigned such that they remain identical across RFID tags, constitutes patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Chief Judge Moore wrote the opinion and concluded that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea but rather provides a novel data structure within a serial number. Here, the idea is that the patentee was able to create a new data field that was "not a mere mental process, but a hardware-based data structure focused on improvements to the technological process by which that data is encoded;" and an improvement with "important technological consequences."
An interesting feature is that the general idea presented by the patentee was already identified and discussed in the book RFID for Dummies. If Avery Dennison loses here, then the district court will hold a trial on anticipation. Still, the "for Dummies" label has strong rhetorical appeal -- should everything in that book title be considered an abstract idea? The petitioner writes:
“[A]bstract ideas are not patentable.” ... It is hard to imagine a more blatant transgression of that rule than the claim in this case, which sought a patent monopoly over the simple concept of treating one long serial number as the combination of two shorter numbers, and then [requiring] blocks of RFID tags all start with the same shorter number. At bottom, that claim is no different from a direction to mentally subdivide all telephone numbers into two component parts and then assign the same leading part to an allocated block of numbers (e.g., all telephone numbers in the District of Columbia start with 202). That may be a good idea (indeed, the concept in ADASA’s patent appears in the pages of RFID for Dummies), but it is no more patentable than the other good but abstract ideas that this Court has held unpatentable for more than 150 years.
Id. I'm confident that if the Supreme Court takes this case, it would even further expand eligibility doctrine.
