Patent Eligibility Reform Introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives
Today Representatives Kevin Kiley (R-CA) and Scott Peters (D-CA) introduced the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA), bipartisan legislation mirroring a proposed law introduced last year by Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE). The proposed law seeks to restore patent eligibility to inventions across many fields and affirms the basic principle that the patent system is central to promoting technology-based innovation.
Automating Background Checks Held Patent Ineligible Under § 101
MILLER MENDEL, INC. V. CITY OF ANNA, TEXAS
Before Moore, Stoll, and Cunningham. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Summary: No live controversy existed over patent claims omitted from infringement contentions prior to a judgment on the pleadings. Claims remaining in controversy were invalid under § 101.
Current Congressional Attempts at Patent Reform
In recent years, Congress has considered potential new laws for patent reform, typically changes to the system supported by patent owners. Two main areas of focus are “Section 101” and the “PTAB.” Below is a summary of two such efforts currently being considered by Congress.
A Computer Method Claim Must Improve the Functions of the Computer to Survive § 101
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP. v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC.
Before Hughes, Reyna, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District for the Western District of Washington.
Summary: A patentee’s allegation that computer method claims made data analysis more efficient, without reference to the function or operation of the computer itself, was not sufficient to overcome a challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Avoiding § 101 Eligibility Issues in Internet-Centric Method Claims
WEISNER v. GOOGLE LLC
Before Stoll, Reyna, and Hughes, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Summary: The specific implementation of an abstract idea, such as improving Internet functionality, can be a patent eligible concept.
Momentum Builds for Supreme Court Review of American Axle, Clarification of Patent Eligibility Law
Introduction
The Mayo/Alice subject-matter eligibility test has been a controversial topic since its creation. Many have argued that it leaves innovators, particularly in the software field, with uncertainty as to whether their advances are patentable. In American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, the Federal Circuit extended this uncertainty into the mechanical field.
Claims Directed at Longstanding Commercial Practices Do Not Pass Step One of the § 101 Test
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. SHOPPERSCHOICE.COM, LLC
Before Prost, Dyk, and Wallach. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC (“ECT”) sued ShoppersChoice.com, LLC (“SC”) for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,373,261 (“the ’261 patent”). SC moved for judgment on the pleadings that claim 11 of the ’261 patent was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court granted the motion. ECT appealed to the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the invalidity of claim 11.