United States: Patent Drafting Post-Alice: Broadly Define The Problem, And Narrowly Claim The Solutions

The notion of strategic claim drafting, which experienced patent practitioners understand, is all about writing specific, narrowly defined claims to cover the strategically important "choke points" in a value chain.1 The rationale is that the narrowness of the claim makes it less vulnerable to a validity attack on prior art grounds. In the discussion below, I first review the recent decision in SRI International Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc., and then I discuss how a similar strategically narrow drafting approach can be effective in diverting a § 101 attack on claims directed to software-related inventions.

In SRI International Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc.,2 the court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment that the asserted claims of plaintiff's network security patents encompassed unpatentable subject matter, and found that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea. The patents in suit, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,711,615 (the '615 patent) and 6,484,203 (the '203 patent), relate to the monitoring and surveillance of computer networks for intrusion detection. In particular, the patents teach a computer-automated method of hierarchical event monitoring and analysis within an enterprise network that allows for real-time detection of intruders. Upon detecting any suspicious activity, the network monitors generate reports of such activity. The claims of the patents focus on methods and systems for deploying a hierarchy of network monitors that can generate and receive reports of suspicious network activity. For example, independent claims 1 and 13 of the '615 patent read as follows:

  1. A computer-automated method of hierarchical event monitoring and analysis within an enterprise network comprising:

    deploying a plurality of network monitors in the enterprise network;

    detecting, by the network monitors, suspicious network activity based on analysis of network traffic data selected from one or more of the following categories: {network packet data transfer commands, network packet data transfer errors, network packet data volume, network connection requests, network connection denials, error codes included in a network packet, network connection acknowledgements, and network packets indicative of well-known network-service protocols};

    generating, by the monitors, reports of said suspicious activity; and

    automatically receiving and integrating the reports of suspicious activity, by one or more hierarchical monitors.
  2. An enterprise network monitoring system comprising:

    a plurality of network monitors deployed within an enterprise network, said plurality of network monitors detecting suspicious network activity based on analysis of network traffic data selected from one or more of the following categories: {network packet data transfer commands, network packet data transfer errors, network packet data volume, network connection requests, network connection denials, error codes included in a network packet, network connection acknowledgments, and network packets indicative of well-known network-service protocols};

    said network monitors generating reports of said suspicious activity; and

    one or more hierarchical monitors in the enterprise network, the hierarchical monitors adapted to automatically receive and integrate the reports of suspicious activity.

In the course of describing the law of patent eligibility post-Alice, Judge Robinson commented that:

Because computer software comprises a set of instructions,3 the first step of Alice is, for the most part, a given; i.e., computer-implemented patents generally involve abstract ideas. The more difficult part of the analysis is subsumed in the second step of the Alice analysis, that is, determining whether the claims "merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet," or whether the claims are directed to "a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer technology" and the claimed solution specifies how computer technology should be manipulated to overcome the problem. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

(SRI International at 8.)

The court then observed that,

Since providing that explanation in DDR Holdings, the Federal Circuit has not preserved the validity of any other computer-implemented invention under § 101. Indeed, in reviewing post-Alice cases such as DDR and Intellectual Ventures, the court is struck by the evolution of the § 101 jurisprudence, from the complete rejection of patentability for computer programs to the almost complete acceptance of such, to the current (apparent) requirements that the patent claims in suit (1) disclose a problem "necessarily rooted in computer technology," and (2) claim a solution that (a) not only departs from the "routine and conventional" use of the technology, but (b) is sufficiently specific so as to negate the risk of pre-emption. See DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257; Intellectual Ventures, 792 F.3d at 1371. In other words, even though most of the patent claims now being challenged under § 101 would have survived such challenges if mounted at the time of issuance, these claims are now in jeopardy under the heightened specificity required by the Federal Circuit post-Alice. Moreover, it is less than clear how a § 101 inquiry that is focused through the lens of specificity can be harmonized with the roles given to other aspects of the patent law (such as enablement under § 112 and non-obviousness under § 103), especially in light of the Federal Circuit's past characterization of § 101 eligibility as a coarse gauge of the suitability of broad subject matter categories for patent protection. Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Given the evolving state of the law, the § 101 analysis should be, and is, a difficult exercise. At their broadest, the various decisions of the Federal Circuit would likely ring the death-knell for patent protection of computer-implemented inventions, a result not clearly mandated (at least not yet). On the other hand, to recognize and articulate the requisite degree of specificity – either in the equipment used or the steps claimed – that transforms an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter is a challenging task. In trying to sort through the various iterations of the § 101 standard, the court looks to DDR as a benchmark; i.e., the claims (informed by the specification) must describe a problem and solution rooted in computer technology, and the solution must be (1) specific enough to preclude the risk of pre-emption, and (2) innovative enough to "override the routine and conventional" use of the computer. DDR, 773 F.3d at 1258-59.

(SRI International at 8-10, footnotes omitted.)

Alice Step 1: The court first determined whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea. Cisco argued that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of "monitoring and analyzing data from multiple sources to detect broader patterns of suspicious activity," which, Cisco argued, is "a fundamental building block of intelligence gathering and network security." Cisco analogized this idea to a number of spy and security-gathering endeavors, including "networks [employed by] ancient Chinese military strategists and both sides during the Revolutionary War" and police departments using crime reports to detect "broader patterns of criminal activity." Cisco argued that humans can perform each of the steps of the method (detecting suspicious network activity, generating reports of said activity, and receiving and integrating the reports), concluding that it is a process that may be performed in the human mind or using a pen and paper, and thus it is unpatentable. SRI disagreed, pointing out that a human would need to use hardware and software in order to examine network traffic.

The court said that, although Cisco can simplify the invention enough to find a human counterpart (or argue that a human could somehow perform the steps of the method), this does not suffice to make the concept abstract. Rather, the patents address the vulnerability of computer networks' "interoperability and sophisticated integration of technology" to attack. (Id. at 12.) "The claims are, therefore, more complex than merely reciting the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet, and are better understood as being necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257." (Id.)

Alice Step 2: In respect to step 2 of the Alice framework, Cisco argued that the claims do not provide an inventive concept, describing the method as follows: a first step reciting conventional pre-solution activity (configuring and installing software); a generic and abstract second step (analyzing data from certain categories); non-inventive third and fourth steps (generating and receiving reports at a centralized computer); and a fifth step (combining reports to create new information). According to Cisco, the patents recite generic computers, i.e., the network monitors, which the parties agreed are software and/or hardware that can collect, analyze, and/or respond to data.

The court noted that the patents explain that "[s]election of packets can be based on different criteria" and that the claims identify particular categories of network traffic data well suited for analysis in determining whether network traffic was suspicious when used in a hierarchical system. As to the hierarchical analysis, the court said that the patents explain that the tiered collection and correlation of analysis results allow monitors to represent and profile global malicious or anomalous activity that is not visible locally. The court concluded that the claims, as an ordered combination in light of the specification, sufficiently delineate how the method is performed to improve the functioning of the computer itself, thereby providing an inventive concept. The court added that the same specificity suffices to negate the risk of disproportionately tying up the use of the underlying ideas. (Id. at 13.) The court thus denied Cisco's motion for invalidity.

Whether or not the court's decision is upheld on appeal (if it is appealed), I believe it serves as a good reminder that § 101 abstractness is inevitably an issue of claim over-breadth. I previously wrote about the use of structural claim limitations to divert Alice problems.4 The recitation of structure makes a claim narrower in scope (since different structures can generally be devised to perform a given function) and thus less abstract. Since the question of abstractness under § 101 is judged on a claim-by-claim basis, it can also be helpful to draft the claims of a patent such that no single claim is broad enough to cover all disclosed embodiments of the invention. This is contrary to the normal claim-drafting approach, i.e., a broad independent claim is drafted to cover all disclosed embodiments, and narrower dependent claims are directed to secondary, possibly inventive features. Nonetheless, this counterintuitive approach may be useful in the current legal environment, in which patents for software-related inventions are under attack. The goal, however, should be to provide a full scope of protection by ensuring that the totality of the claims covers all disclosed embodiments. The following hypothetical example is designed to elucidate this point.

Hypothetical example

Let's start with SRI's claim 1 from the '615 patent:

  1. A computer-automated method of hierarchical event monitoring and analysis within an enterprise network comprising:

    deploying a plurality of network monitors in the enterprise network;

    detecting, by the network monitors, suspicious network activity based on analysis of network traffic data selected from one or more of the following categories: {network packet data transfer commands, network packet data transfer errors, network packet data volume, network connection requests, network connection denials, error codes included in a network packet, network connection acknowledgments, and network packets indicative of well-known network-service protocols};

    generating, by the monitors, reports of said suspicious activity; and

    automatically receiving and integrating the reports of suspicious activity, by one or more hierarchical monitors.

The scope of the "detecting" step is made wider by the use of a so-called Markush group, i.e., ". . . based on analysis of network traffic data selected from one or more of the following categories: {network packet data transfer commands, network packet data transfer errors, . . .}." This breadth, which makes the claim more vulnerable to attack on § 101 grounds, could be reduced by presenting separate independent claims in which the "detecting" step of each claim recites only one of the categories of network traffic. For example, claim 1 could recite "detecting, by the network monitors, suspicious network activity based on analysis of network packet data transfer commands," and the next claim could recite "detecting, by the network monitors, suspicious network activity based on analysis of network packet data transfer errors," and so on, until all categories of network traffic data are covered.

A simpler example might be a patent directed to a seating apparatus, i.e., a stool or chair designed to rest on a surface and provide an elevated seat for the user's comfort. Let's say the application discloses the three embodiments depicted below. These include (1) a basic three-legged stool, (2) a four-legged stool with backrest, and (3) a platform stool with backrest and footrest. A single, broad claim covering these three embodiments might read as follows:

  1. A seating apparatus, comprising a seat and at least one leg connected to the seat and configured to support the seat in an elevated position while at least one leg is resting on a flat surface.

I could envision an examiner or court objecting that this claim 1 is ineligible as being directed to the abstract idea of a seating apparatus having an elevated seat. Now, instead of presenting such a broad and potentially abstract claim, the same scope of protection (more or less) could be obtained by presenting three separate narrower claims directed to the respective embodiments. Example claims of this type are presented below each picture. In this extremely simple example, no single one of claims 1a, 1b, or 1c could be said to create a risk "preempting" the abstract idea of a seating apparatus having an elevated seat.

Basic three-legged stool Four-legged stool with backrest Platform stool with backrest and footrest
1a. A seating apparatus, comprising: a seat and at least three legs connected to said seat and configured to support the seat in an elevated position while said legs are resting on a flat surface. 1b. A seating apparatus, comprising: a seat, a backrest attached to said seat, and at least three legs connected to said seat and configured to support the seat in an elevated position while said legs are resting on a flat surface. 1c. A seating apparatus, comprising: a seat, a backrest attached to said seat, a leg connected to said seat and configured to support the seat in an elevated position while said leg is resting on a flat surface, and a footrest attached to said leg.

In conclusion, the following techniques may be advantageously used in drafting claims to software-related inventions:

  • Try to include structural elements beyond a generic computer or processor. For example, in appropriate cases, specific code structures5 and data structures6 could be recited.
  • Try to define the problem addressed by the invention broadly, but claim the specific solutions/embodiments narrowly, as discussed above.

Unless the Supreme Court favorably clarifies its Alice (and Myriad) opinion(s), or Congress saves the day by amending or eliminating § 101 from the patent laws, practitioners should continue to explore ways to achieve an adequate scope of patent protection while avoiding the post-Alice abstract idea exception.

Footnotes

[1] I've heard this explained using the metaphor of controlling the Strait of Hormuz instead of trying to build a fence around the Persian Gulf.

[2] SRI International Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc., 1-13-cv-01534 (D. Del. April 11, 2016, Order) (Robinson, J.).

[3] In footnote 5, the court additionally commented that software generally comprises a method of organizing human activity, citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367-68 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. 2351-52, and Bilski II, 561 U.S. at 599).

[4] See " How Structural Claim Limitations Can Save Software Patents."

[5] e.g., control structures, subroutines, blocks.

[6] e.g., linear data structures, trees, hashes, graphs.

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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

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.

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 by clicking here .

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.

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.