United States: Patents For Computer And Life Science Technologies Making A Comeback?

Last Updated: November 18 2016
Article by Dorothy R. Auth and Howard Wizenfeld

Most Read Contributor in United States, November 2017

In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has significantly shifted its attention in patent cases to the law regarding patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101, making it more difficult to obtain and enforce patent protection for computer- and life-science- related technologies. Section 101 precludes patent protection for particular subject matters—i.e., laws of nature, natural phenomena and abstract ideas—and the Supreme Court's precedent has extended this exclusion to many cutting- edge technologies. Stakeholders have become alarmed that patent protection for foundational technologies is in jeopardy. Their concern is well founded.

Very few courts have upheld the validity of patent claims directed to computer-related technologies since the Supreme Court's shift. In fact, many district court judges have dismissed cases based on patent ineligibility even before the claim language has been construed or any facts considered. Similarly, life science patents have been held invalid as covering laws of nature or natural phenomena.

Such a trend could have serious implications on America's ability to be competitive in the global marketplace at a time when high-tech and biotech advances constitute major areas of innovation. However, two recent Federal Circuit cases (Rapid Management Litigation and McRO) suggest there may be reasonable boundaries on the court's principles for excluding patent protection. These recent decisions provide clues on how to draft claims that can survive a §101 challenge thereby allowing stakeholders to obtain and enforce patent claims that comport with the Supreme Court's jurisprudence under §101.

Supreme Court Takes Action

In 2012, the Supreme Court took up the issue of patent eligibility in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012). It was a time when the court had—a few years earlier—held that certain patent claims to business methods were not patent-eligible because they were directed to an abstract idea. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010). Now the court was seeing additional problems with patents and patent litigants. First, many patent suits were originating with non-producing entities who made aggressive patent licensing and litigation threats a part of their business model. Second, it was a time when many commentators questioned the quality of patents being granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

The Mayo case addressed claims directed to a patient taking a specified amount of medication based on the concentration of metabolites found in the patient's body. The question presented to the court was whether these claims are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.1

Reasoning that the connection between metabolite level and the necessary amount of medication involved a law of nature, the Supreme Court ruled that these claims were not patent-eligible. Specifically because the claims were directed to "well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously engaged in by researchers in the field" with the simple further instruction to apply it, the claims were held not patenteligible. Significantly more than simply reciting a natural law and adding the words "apply it" must be claimed to be patent-eligible.

Less than a year later, the Supreme Court addressed patent eligibility in Myriad Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, 133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013). The patentee in Myriad asserted claims directed to certain isolated naturally occurring DNA sequences known as BRCA1 and BRCA2 and methods of using the sequences to diagnose breast cancer. The court held those claims invalid as patent-ineligible. However, in dicta, the Supreme Court left open the door to patents directed to "new applications of knowledge" stating that such applications of knowledge could be patent-eligible.

The following year, the Supreme Court clarified the principle set out in Mayo with a two-step test to analyze patent claims for compliance with 35 U.S.C. §101 in Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). The first step of this test inquired whether the claim at issue is "directed to" one of the exceptions to patent eligibility, such as an abstract idea. If so, then step two would determine whether the claims—both their individual elements and as a whole—contain an "'inventive concept'" sufficient to "'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application." Using this two-step test, the court held that "if a patent's recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to 'implement' an abstract idea 'on a computer,' that addition cannot impart patent eligibility." The Alice ruling had a significant impact on computer-related patents, putting the industry on notice that it can no longer rely on patent protection for methods of doing business by using a general purpose computer.

Fallout for Industries

Both the high-tech and life sciences industries have been seriously affected by these holdings.

Since the Alice decision in June 2014, there have been 137 computer- implemented method patents that have been invalidated by the district courts. Of those 137 invalidated patents, 44 were invalidated pursuant to a motion to dismiss on the pleadings, 48 were invalidated pursuant to a motion for summary judgment, and 45 were invalidated by a district court judge after conducting a trial. Thus, of the high-tech patents asserted in litigation, 57 percent have been found invalid as directed to patentineligible subject matter.2 Further, 75 percent of these decisions were affirmed by the Federal Circuit.3

Post-Alice, the major question for those in the high-tech industry has been whether the courts might use Alice to strike down the entire class of patents as patent-ineligible for merely reciting process steps implemented on a computer. The Supreme Court decisions have raised similar concerns among life sciences companies that rely heavily on patent protection to justify commercial development of a new product. The holdings have clouded the validity of thousands of already-granted U.S. patents and materially affected the strategy companies follow to protect potential biologic product candidates.

Even the dicta in Myriad, which left a faint hope alive that claims covering the application of natural phenomenon (and even isolated compounds) may be patent-eligible was dashed when a claim directed to an application of a natural phenomenon was struck down as patent-ineligible. See Ariosa Diagnostics v. Sequenom, 788 F.3d 1371, reh'g en banc denied, 809 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (per curiam), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 2511 (2016). The claims in Ariosa were directed to the specific application of extracting, amplifying and detecting paternal cell-free fetal DNA in maternal serum.

Although the Federal Circuit denied a rehearing in Ariosa, Judge Pauline Newman dissented, arguing that the Supreme Court's precedent did not warrant invalidating the Ariosa claims. Relying on the Supreme Court's interpretation of §101 based on preemption, Judge Newman reasoned that per Myriad "patenting of this new diagnostic method" was patent-eligible because it did not "preempt further study of this science."

New Hope

For many, Ariosa has been a low point for patent eligibility. Recently, the Federal Circuit has showed signs of moving away from a restrictive reading and has instead moderated its view of § 101, providing new hope to patentees in both the life- sciences and high-tech fields. The Federal Circuit has begun analyzing the first Alice step by focusing on whether the claimed subject matter preempts the claimed field to produce a more balanced legal framework for determining patent eligibility.

In one recent Federal Circuit case, Rapid Litigation, the claims at issue were directed to using a specific process for repeatedly freezing and thawing liver cells to produce a set of viable cells. See Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. Cellzdirect, 827 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Although the district court found the claims invalid as claiming a law of nature, the Federal Circuit reversed stating that under step one of the two-step test, the claims are directed to more than just multiple cycles of freezing and thawing liver cells and thus do not preempt a law of nature.

When looking to the claim as a whole, the court stated: "The claims are directed to a new and useful method preserving hepatocyte cells. Indeed, the claims recite a 'method of producing a desired preparation of multi-cryopreserved hepatocytes'" and that, according to the specification, "achieves a better way of preserving hepatocytes" than other known methods. Because the claims specifically recited the technical improvement, the Federal Circuit found other methods would not be preempted and thus found step one had been satisfied.

Similarly, the Federal Circuit in McRO clarified its stance on whether software-related inventions were eligible for protection, answering in the affirmative to the relief of many in the high-tech field. McRO v. Bandai Namco Games Am., No. 15-1080, 2016 WL 4896481(Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2016). Here too, the Federal Circuit found that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea under step one of the test and therefore were patent-eligible.

McRO's patent claims were directed to automating 3-D animation by using a particular set of rules which provided an advancement over known methods. As explained in the specification, 3-D animation uses multiple 3-D models of a character's face to depict various facial expressions made during speech. Using prior methods, an animator had to manually determine how to morph the character's face between the various 3-D models of facial expression.

Applying the two-step test as articulated in Rapid Litigation, the Federal Circuit found the claims required more than the abstract idea of using any rules-based approach to animate 3-D models. Indeed, the recited rules themselves had specific requirements that did not "preemp[t] all techniques for automating 3-D animation that rely on rules" and thus the claims were patent-eligible subject matter.

Post-Alice, Mayo and Myriad

Given the recent Rapid Litigation and McRO decisions, the Federal Circuit seems to have provided a more balanced framework to assess patent eligibility. The common theme running through both Rapid Litigation and McRO is that the specification must explain the technical improvements which in turn must be specifically recited in the claims. In addition, as McRO points out, even generic claims may be patent-eligible so long as the claims specifically recite the necessary steps or rules and do not preempt all other techniques in the claimed field.

Finally, the court's current focus on recitation of technical improvements and on consideration of what the claims are "directed to" may be a signal that the Federal Circuit may be gently shifting its focus to analyzing claims under other statutory provisions addressing novelty and enablement.

Footnotes

1. The patent laws of the United States define patent-eligible subject matter under §101 as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof." Although expansive, the language of §101 is not limitless. The Supreme Court has read §101 as excluding from patent protection "laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). The reason for this exclusionary principle stems from a concern of preemption. See Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). Laws of nature (like gravity), natural phenomena (like the DNA sitting in our chromosomes), and abstract ideas (like mathematical algorithms) are the "building blocks of human ingenuity" and therefore may not be used by one for all purposes. Id. Monopolization of these tools by the grant of a patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it, thereby thwarting the primary object of the patent laws.

2. The statistics are based on research by LegalMetric, a legal research company, in a paper titled "Patent Eligibility Win Rates post- Alice to June 2016."

3. The statistics are based on research by LegalMetric, in a paper titled "Percentage of Patent Ineligibility Decisions Affirmed June 2014 to October 2016."

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration
Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:
  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.
  • Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.
    If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here
    If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here

    Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

    Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

    Use of www.mondaq.com

    You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

    Disclaimer

    Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

    The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

    Registration

    Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

    • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
    • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
    • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

    Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

    Information Collection and Use

    We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

    We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

    Mondaq News Alerts

    In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

    Cookies

    A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

    Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

    Log Files

    We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

    Links

    This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

    Surveys & Contests

    From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

    Mail-A-Friend

    If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

    Emails

    From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

    *** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .

    Security

    This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

    Correcting/Updating Personal Information

    If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

    Notification of Changes

    If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

    How to contact Mondaq

    You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

    If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.

    By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions