India: Software-Patentability Test in United States---- Federal-Circuit Offers Clarification

Last Updated: 18 August 2017
Article by Rahul Sharma

Adjudications by Federal Circuit (United States) last year in respect of software related patents clarifies the test as had propounded in wake of Alice judgement few years ago. The clarification is indeed a breather for an innovator vying for a software related patent. While an invention caused by generic-computer executing software remains difficult to be patented in India, the adjudications indicate that United States remains an un-disputably attractive destination for patenting said inventions till date.

Yet, the scenario has not always been such favourable since in the year 2014, the United States Supreme Court had come down heavily against software-patents in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International decision while considering the principle patentability of software patents. A two-step Alice test was propounded in respect of examining software related patent applications and made the road-ahead difficult.

As may be recollected, Step 1 of the Alice test requires that the claims shall be considered in their entirety to ascertain whether their 'character as a whole' is directed or pointing towards patent ineligible subject matter, say an abstract idea. If no, then the subject matter is indeed considered statutory and evaluated on other grounds of patentability. However, in case the answer to Step 1 is yes, then the Step 2 of test swings into action and requires a more in-depth analysis of the claim-elements to determine whether they identify an 'inventive concept' in the application of the otherwise ineligible matter.

Post Alice, gaining US software patents became comparatively difficult owing to lack of clarity. District courts rejected hundreds of patents under 35 USC § 101 of the US patent laws, finding they're nothing more than abstract-ideas.

Yet, the year 2016 proved favourable as Federal Circuit Court while hearing appeals from lower courts on computer-related patents (that were challenged under the Alice precedent) found instances where they believed that software patents were wrongly rejected. 

Such pronouncements clarify that the Alice ruling certainly didn't mean that 'all' software patents were prima facie non-patentable. Moreover, the adjudications further tend to enlighten as to what a software patent might require to survive examination and opposition. In other words, the judgements in 2016 by Federal Circuit Court have tendered a respite to software-patent aspirants by providing a long-awaited clarity in terms of Alice ruling and facilitated the patent applicants in keeping their interests alive.

In Enfish LLC v. Microsoft, the Federal Circuit was confronted with determining whether the claimed elements such 'filtering internet content' and 'self-referential tables' for a database are 'patent-eligible' subject matter? The court arrived at a conclusion that both indeed led to an improved-functionality of computer systems. More specifically, the court was especially influenced by the specification, which disclosed that the 'indexing technique' in tables allowed for faster searching of data and more effective storage of data within a computing-system.

'Improvements to computer functionality' as a concept was subsequently re-analyzed by Federal circuit in later decisions, where the court found that the processes like classifying an image and storing the image based on the classification, collecting information, analysing it, and displaying results for an electric power grid (Electric Power Group v Allstom) never improve upon a computer's functionality. In fact, the Court criticised the claims considered in Electric Power Group as being overly broad and aspirational, commenting that

"there is a critical difference between patenting a particular concrete solution to a problem and attempting to patent the abstract idea of a solution to the problem in general."

The court clarified that the focus of the claims in Electric Power Group is not as such an improvement in computers during their usage. On the contrary, the improvements lie in certain independent abstract ideas that use computers merely as tools.

In McRO v. Bandai Namco Games America, the Federal Circuit again adjudicated the appealed software patent as not directed to the patent ineligible subject, let alone evaluating the matter based on Step-2 test. The Court determined that lip synchronisation for 3D animated characters (McRO) is patent-eligible and is accordingly in compliance with the first step of Alice. More specifically, the court averred that the claims defined specific rules required to produce lip synchronisation and therefore do not pre-empt any automated method of lip synchronisation.

The ratio-decidendi in McRO was that the claims define the 'specific' method for producing a particular effect, not for the effect itself. In other words, neither the claims were overly broad nor directed towards desired-result. The decision of the Court in McRO can be contrasted with the afore-discussed Electric Power Group, where the claims failed to comply with Step 2 requirement for being directed towards the desired-effect and not a specific method of producing the effect.

The Court in McRO further opined that "processes that automate tasks that humans are capable of performing are patent eligible if properly claimed". It was held that the claims in McRO were "limited to rules with specific characteristics." Quoting the specification, the court held that "the claimed improvement here is allowing computers to  produce 'accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters,' which could previously only have been produced by human animators."

Further, in Amdocs v. Openet Telecom, the district court found that Amdocs' claim wasn't much more than the abstract idea of correlating two networks and rejected the claims. On the other hand, the Federal Circuit while hearing the appeal recognized that claims despite being directed to non-eligible matter should have been allowed. The Federal Circuit went on to say that "the claims entail an unconventional technological solution (enhancing data in a distributed fashion) to a technological problem (massive record flows that previously required massive databases)" The appellate court further remarked that the components needed were "arguably generic" but had been used in such an "unconventional manner" that they  led to "an improvement in computer functionality."

Conclusion

The Federal Circuit's opinions in 2016 reaffirm that software remains worthy of patent protection just as any other field of technology. Yet, overly broad, aspirational, result oriented claims in software related inventions are likely to be rejected. To put it differently, the claims to an effect / result that pre-empt other methods of achieving the same effect are unlikely to pass the Alice test. More specifically, when considering step 2 of the Alice test to detect the possibilities of pre-emption, it has been unanimously affirmed by the United States courts that the claims shall be assessed to identify an 'inventive concept' in the application of the ineligible matter. Such identification of an inventive concept is undertaken by examiners with recourse to 35 USC § 103 (inventive step) based considerations.

Based upon aforesaid affirmation, one may think that the automation of known processes (which is usually perceived as obvious in nature) will mostly fail the 'inventive concept' based criteria and thus step 2 of the Alice test. However, in McRO, the Federal Circuit opined that "processes that automate tasks that humans are capable of performing are patent eligible if properly claimed". Accordingly, a substantive depiction of inventive merit within the claims not only overcomes cited prior art(s), but also clears the hurdle posed as posed by Step 2 of Alice test.

As far as India is concerned, the fact of the matter remains that "a general purpose computer executing one or more sequences of instructions stored in the memory" remains a highly opposed proposition by Indian Patent regime till date. The same stands evidenced by a latest Indian Patent Office order dated August 9, 2017 in respect of Indian Patent Application No. 1208/DEL/2004. However, the Federal circuit's adjudication at least in Enfish substantiates the fact that United States regime continues to opine otherwise .

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
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Khurana and Khurana
Vaish Associates Advocates
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Khurana and Khurana
Vaish Associates Advocates
Related Articles
 
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 (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

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