ARTICLE
13 April 2022

First District Court Decision On Blockchain Technology Patent Eligibility

KL
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP

Contributor

Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer is a world-leading global law firm, where our ambition is to help you achieve your goals. Exceptional client service and the pursuit of excellence are at our core. We invest in and care about our client relationships, which is why so many are longstanding. We enjoy breaking new ground, as we have for over 170 years. As a fully integrated transatlantic and transpacific firm, we are where you need us to be. Our footprint is extensive and committed across the world’s largest markets, key financial centres and major growth hubs. At our best tackling complexity and navigating change, we work alongside you on demanding litigation, exacting regulatory work and complex public and private market transactions. We are recognised as leading in these areas. We are immersed in the sectors and challenges that impact you. We are recognised as standing apart in energy, infrastructure and resources. And we’re focused on areas of growth that affect every business across the world.
We have an update to our previous article, as the court in Rady v. Boston Consulting Group, LLC found that a patent directed to blockchain technology
United States Intellectual Property
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP are most popular:
  • within Intellectual Property, Environment and Coronavirus (COVID-19) topic(s)
  • in United States

We have an update to our previous article, as the court in Rady v. Boston Consulting Group, LLC found that a patent directed to blockchain technology covered patent ineligible subject matter under the Alice test for 35 U.S.C. § 101. No. 1-20-cv-02285 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2020) at 4-6. To our knowledge, this is the first time any court has specifically dealt with the issue of patent eligibility for blockchain technology. 

In a short opinion, the court determined that the claims were abstract under Step 1 of the Alice test because "Plaintiff's claims are directed at the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, and storing data." Id. at 5. The court opined that "'network nodes,' 'processing devices,' 'storage device,' 'communication subsystem,' '3D scanning and spatial' devices, and 'blockchains' are similar to the computer hardware in Alice" and therefore abstract. The court further determined that the ability to track physical objects (in this case, gemstones) did not save the claims. Id

The court also found that Step 2 of the Alice test was not met because recording and logging unique gemstone data in a "peer-to-peer" network did not improve computer functionality, and the Plaintiff did not describe how the claims improved blockchain technology. Id. at 5-6. Finally, the court concluded that the dependent claims simply pointed to more components that were already known in the industry. Id. at 6.

It is worth noting that the court invalidated this patent despite the use of a blockchain in conjunction with a physical component to create a 3D spatial map of an item (See '250 Patent at Claim 1) and the inclusion of multiple physical components in dependent claims, such as a "spectral imager," "light source," "ranger scanner," "calibration target," "HD photography camera" and "scale." (See '250 Patent at Claim 2). We will continue to monitor this area, as more decisions are sure to be on the horizon for blockchain technology.

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.

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