The patent US 7,346,545, relating to delivering copyrighted media products through a server free of charge in exchange for watching advertisements, has been enforced by Ultramercial against a number of Internet media competitors, like Hulu, WildTangent and YouTube. In August 2010 the 545 patent has been found invalid by a California District Court in view of the Bilski v. Kappos ruling which has been issued shortly before by the US Supreme Court (CV 09-06918). For further information on this case, please see my earlier posting here.
To be on the safe side, the District Court applied a two-stage approach, that is, as a screening filter, the CAFC’s machine-or-transformation test and then the SCOTUS abstract idea test.
The MOT test failed as the District Court found that the “mere act of storing media on computer memory does not tie the invention to a machine in any meaningful way”. Further, the Court identified “using advertisement as a currency” as the core principle of the patent, while the claims do not cite any concrete features as to how the core principle can be implemented.
Some observers criticised the District Court’s reasoning as being capable to kill any invention where a key concept can be labelled ‘abstract’ even if the invention is clearly limited to an electronic implementation and even if the electronic implementation is central to the idea.
Now, as the Federal Circuit under Chief Judge Radar reviewed the case in appeal, it turns out that such criticism hit the mark (see decision of June 21, 2013), as the case was reversed and remanded. In its decision the Federal Circuit referred multiple times to the term “technology”, e.g.:
- The plain language of the [patent act] provides that any new, non-obvious, and fully disclosed technical advance is eligible for protection.
- After all, unlike the Copyright Act which divides ideas from expression, the Patent Act covers and protects any new and useful technical advance, including applied ideas.
- Far from abstract, advances in computer technology—both hardware and software—drive innovation in every area of scientific and technical endeavor.
Theses three statements distributed across the 36 pages of the decision seem to define the underlying rational of this decision: Technical progress is -nowadays- driven by computer technology which in turn is patent-eligible even if, e.g. in case of software, only an abstract idea is applied (i.e. implemented).
Of course, this does not mean that each software-implemented abstract idea qualifies for a US patent, however, it at least means that software-implemented abstract ideas are protectable if they are novel and unobvious. With a bit more context, the Circuit’s understanding of patent-eligible software is expressed in this paragraph on page 31:
In other words, a programmed computer contains circuitry unique to that computer. That “new machine” could be claimed in terms of a complex array of hardware circuits, or more efficiently, in terms of the programming that facilitates a unique function. With the digital computer, considered by some the greatest invention of the twentieth century, as a vital invention, both this court and the Patent Office have long acknowledged that “improvements thereof” through interchangeable software or hardware enhancements deserve patent protection.
Before this background, the Circuit assesses the means required to lead a computer-program out of abstractness into patentability:
When assessing computer implemented claims, while the mere reference to a general purpose computer will not save a method claim from being deemed too abstract to be patent eligible, the fact that a claim is limited by a tie to a computer is an important indication of patent eligibility.
[...] While no particular type of limitation is necessary, meaningful limitations may include the computer being part of the solution, being integral to the performance of the method, or containing an improvement in computer technology.
The Federal Circuit thus held that technical features relating to the implementation of a software-based invention can render a claim non-abstract and patent eligible. The MOT test, whose exclusiveness has been eliminated in Bilski v Kappos, appears to be substituted by some sort of a ’programming complexity test’:
We have held that such programming creates a new machine, because a general purpose computer in effect becomes a special purpose computer once it is programmed to perform particular functions pursuant to instructions from program software.
[...] Having said that, this court does not define the level of programming complexity required before a computer-implemented method can be patent-eligible.
Thus, besides tangible implementational features a certain programming complexity that is required to implement the claimed method can overcome abstractness too. But what exactly are those features that render claim 1 of the 545 patent eligible:
[...] This court does not need the record of a formal claim construction to see that many of these steps [of claim 1] require intricate and complex computer programming.
From a European perspective, the business method according to claim 1 may well pass the trivial “technical character” test according to Art. 52 (2), (3) EPC as the method is conducted via the “Internet”, which would be sufficient to establish so called a priori technicality.
As “Internet” appears to be the only technical feature, an EPO Opposition Division could then very quickly finish examination – even without a prior art search – by considering this feature notoriously known, such as a standard computer or standard database (cf. EPO Boards of Appeal T 641/00,T1284/04, T1928/06).
If the imagined EPO Opposition Division would not take that exit, next would be to identify the novel features of that claim via-a-vis the closest prior art reference. As those novel features (if any) would be entirely non-technical, the claim would immediately be classified obvious, as no technical feature are present by which a technical problem could be derived and which may establish an inventive step, as required by so called a posteriori technicallity.
Further, as European examiners are allowed to consider all non-technical disclosure of an application as admitted prior art and thus may use it upon assessing inventive step, claim 1 of the 545 patent would – if nevertheless some technical features could be identified in the claim – at least fail at this point, as the non-technical disclosure would direct the skilled person towards the technical aspects of the claimed subject-matter.
For an in-depth explanation of how software inventions are examined in Europe please see here.
Consequently, as the Federal Circuit appears to consider many of the steps of claim 1 technical because complex programming is needed to implement them, only the Internet feature would be accepted as technical in Europe. The standards of patent-eligibility of software-based inventions are thus much more restricted in Europe – at least as compared to this decision under Chief Judge Radar.
As the Federal Circuit remanded the case bach to the previous instance, we may in future here more about the unobviousness of the patent before the background of the CAFC’s decision. For now, however, it appears fair to assume that the basis of features usable for assessing inventiveness/unobviousness is more restricted in Europe as well. While in Europe only technical features can establish inventive step, the reasons of allowance for the 545 patent were:
The prior art on record neither alone nor in combination [...] teach and suggest the ordered combination of a second step of selecting a sponsor message to be associated with the media product, said sponsor message being selected from a plurality of sponsor messages, said second step including accessing an activity log to verify that the total number of times which the sponsor message has been previously presented is less than the number of transaction cycles contracted by the sponsor of the sponsor message, a fourth step of offering to a consumer access to the media product without charge to the consumer on the precondition that the consumer views the sponsor message, and subsequent to the ninth step, a tenth step of receiving payment from the sponsor of the sponsor message displayed.
Probably, none of theses steps would have qualified for inventive step assessment under the standards of the case law of the EPO Boards of Appeal. Assuming these feature are novel over prior art, that claim would have to be considered non-inventive due to lack of technical features.
Volker 'Falk' Metzler
European Patent Attorney, German 'Patentanwalt', European Trademark and Design Attorney, Computer Scientist, PhD, IP Blogger, Father of Two, Mountain Enthusiast
The k/s/n/h::law blog
Some of the patent attorneys of the KSNH law firm have joined their efforts to research what is going on in the various branches of IP law and practice in order to keep themselves, their clients as well as interested circles of the public up to date. This blog is intended to present results of such efforts to a wider public.
- November 2013 (2)
- October 2013 (1)
- September 2013 (1)
- August 2013 (2)
- July 2013 (3)
- June 2013 (5)
- March 2013 (5)
- February 2013 (4)
- January 2013 (5)
- December 2012 (5)
- November 2012 (5)
- July 2012 (5)
- June 2012 (8)
- May 2012 (5)
- April 2012 (3)
- March 2012 (4)
- February 2012 (5)
- January 2012 (6)
- December 2011 (12)
- November 2011 (9)
- October 2011 (9)
- September 2011 (4)
- August 2011 (7)
- July 2011 (4)
- June 2011 (1)
- business methods (6)
- EPC (7)
- EPO (12)
- EU law (92)
- European Patent Law (37)
- German Patent ACt (PatG) (1)
- German patent law (5)
- Germany (6)
- Pirate Party (3)
- International Patent Law (4)
- PCT (2)
- IP politics (10)
- licenses (2)
- Litigation (5)
- Patentability (7)
- Patents (12)
- Piratenpartei (2)
- Software inventions (10)
- Uncategorized (9)
- Unitary Patent (24)
- US Patent Law (4)
- kelle on Germany: Copyright Protection More Easily Available For Works Of “Applied Arts”
- Time Limits & Deadlines in Draft UPCA RoP: Counting The Days - KSNH Law - Intangible.Me on Wiki Edition of Agreement on Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA)
- Time Limits & Deadlines in Draft UPCA RoP: Counting The Days | ksnh::law on Wiki Edition of Agreement on Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA)
- Wiki Edition of Agreement on Unified Patent Cou... on Wiki Edition of Agreement on Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA)
- European Commission Takes Next Step Towards Legalising Software Patents in Europe | Techrights on EU Commission publishes Proposal of amendend Brussels I Regulation for ensuring Enforcement of UPC Judgements
- No public Twitter messages.
- Ist Verschlüsselung passé? September 6, 2013Auf verschiedenen Feldern beruflicher Praxis ist dafür zu sorgen, dass Kommunikation vertraulich bleibt. Die trifft beispielsweise für Ärzte zu, aber auch für Anwälte, darunter auch Patentanwälte. Einer der zahlreichen Aspekte, die in diesem Zusammenhang eine Rolle spielen, ist die Technik, um die Vertraulichkeit beruflicher Kommunikation sicherzustellen. Wa […]
- EU-Einheitspatent: Demonstrativer Optimismus und Zahlenmystik allerorten – Naivität oder politische Beeinflussung? June 26, 2013Nach mehreren vergeblichen Anläufen zur Schaffung eines EU-weiten Patentsystems wurde 1973 als Kompromiss das Europäische Patentübereinkommen unterzeichnet, welches unabhängig von der seinerzeit noch EWG genannten Europäischen Union System zur zentralisierten Patenterteilung mit nachgeordnetem Einspruchsverfahren durch das Europäische Patentamt schuf. Wie wi […]
- Moderne Zeiten oder: DPMA und Patentgericht streiten über die elektronische Akte April 25, 2013Bekanntlich hat das Deutsche Patent- und Markenamt (DPMA) im Jahre 2013 mit der rein technischen Fertigstellung der Einrichtungen zur elektronischen Akteneinsicht einen wichtigen Meilenstein seines Überganges von der Papierakte zur “elektronischen Akte” erreicht. Im DPMA werden aber bereits seit dem 01. Juni 2011 Patente, Gebrauchsmuster, Topografien und erg […]
- Gutachten zu Forschung, Innovation und technologischer Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands 2013 March 11, 2013Unter dem Datum vom 28. Februar 2013 ist die Bundestags-Drucksache 17/12611 veröffentlicht worden Sie trägt den Titel Unterrichtung durch die Bundesregierung - Gutachten zu Forschung, Innovation und technologischer Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands 2013. Die Bundesregierung legt dem Deutschen Bundestag seit dem Jahr 2008 […]
- 3D-Printing: Zum Filesharing von 3D-Modelldaten February 25, 2013In meiner kleinen zuvor angekündigten Reihe über rechtliche Aspekte des 3D Printing komme ich heute auf die Frage zu sprechen, ob die Hersteller von Gerätschaften es hinnehmen müssen, wenn Ersatztreile davon – vom Brillengestell über Smartphone-Gehäuseteile bis hin zu Rastenmähermotor-Abdeckungen – gescannt und die daraus […]
- Ist Verschlüsselung passé? September 6, 2013