ARTICLE
30 November 2006

Recently Issued Financial Services Industry Patent Raises Concerns

GP
Goodwin Procter LLP

Contributor

At Goodwin, we partner with our clients to practice law with integrity, ingenuity, agility, and ambition. Our 1,600 lawyers across the United States, Europe, and Asia excel at complex transactions, high-stakes litigation and world-class advisory services in the technology, life sciences, real estate, private equity, and financial industries. Our unique combination of deep experience serving both the innovators and investors in a rapidly changing, technology-driven economy sets us apart.
In recent years there have been an increasing number of patents directed towards the financial services community. Continuing this trend, on August 8, 2006, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") issued U.S. Patent No. 7,089,503 ("the ’503 patent"), entitled "Mortgage Loan Customization System and Process" to Fannie Mae.
United States Intellectual Property

In recent years there have been an increasing number of patents directed towards the financial services community. Continuing this trend, on August 8, 2006, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") issued U.S. Patent No. 7,089,503 ("the ’503 patent"), entitled "Mortgage Loan Customization System and Process" to Fannie Mae. This patent, which was originally filed April 3, 2002, is directed to "a computer-implemented method for providing a borrower with a mortgage loan that is customized to meet the requirements of the borrower."

Fannie Mae is a government-sponsored entity created to establish a secondary market for mortgages. Fannie Mae purchases mortgages on the secondary market and sells them as securities to investors on the open market, but it labors under a number of statutory restrictions on its activities and, in particular, is not allowed to originate loans. While there is no prohibition on the government or federally chartered companies from owning patents, news of the patent’s approval prompted several mortgage industry trade groups to ask Fannie Mae to abandon the patent. These trade groups expressed concern with the fact the patent involves processes Fannie Mae cannot engage in and with the breadth of the patent’s claims, noting that much of the technology has long been used in the mortgage industry. The concerned trade groups argued that the patent may inhibit innovation by discouraging lenders from developing their own similar software or processes to avoid potential legal battles with Fannie Mae.

In response to the criticism of its patent, Fannie Mae announced on November 21, 2006 that it would grant non-exclusive, royalty-free licenses under the patent and would respond to any company that sent it an e-mail request. Fannie Mae did, however, resist the trade groups’ request to place the technology entirely in the public domain, citing the need to protect its intellectual property assets and to protect itself from patent infringement claims. It is unclear whether the terms of any proffered license will be acceptable to mortgage industry participants.

Fannie Mae owns several patents in addition to the ’503 patent and also has a number of patent applications pending before the USPTO. Additionally, a continuation of the ’503 patent is still pending before the USPTO, which could allow Fannie Mae to secure additional claims on its invention.

Goodwin Procter LLP is one of the nation's leading law firms, with a team of 700 attorneys and offices in Boston, Los Angeles, New York, San Diego, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. The firm combines in-depth legal knowledge with practical business experience to deliver innovative solutions to complex legal problems. We provide litigation, corporate law and real estate services to clients ranging from start-up companies to Fortune 500 multinationals, with a focus on matters involving private equity, technology companies, real estate capital markets, financial services, intellectual property and products liability.

This article, which may be considered advertising under the ethical rules of certain jurisdictions, is provided with the understanding that it does not constitute the rendering of legal advice or other professional advice by Goodwin Procter LLP or its attorneys. © 2006 Goodwin Procter LLP. All rights reserved.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More