In talking to clients whose patent applications involve software, it simply is not good enough to ask for as much specificity as possible to help remove the invention from the realm of an abstract idea and avoid an unpatentable subject matter rejection. Rather, it now seems that the required specificity must also be grounded in a “technical means” for implementing the software components. Of course, what this “technical means” encompasses is not necessarily easy to define.
Smartphone under judge gavel over it – studio shot on white
A recent decision from the Federal Circuit in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. does provide some helpful insight as to this “technical means.” Case No. 2015-1778 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2016).
The patents at issue involved systems and methods for performing real-time performance monitoring of an electric power grid by collecting data from multiple data sources, analyzing the data, and displaying results. Importantly, a majority of software developers will consider many of the recited steps as common building block of the trade, including:
receiving a plurality of data streams;
detecting and analyzing events in real-time;
displaying analysis results;
displaying concurrent visualization of measurements;
accumulating and updating the measurements from the date streams; and
deriving a composite indicator of reliability.
In reviewing these steps, the court first clarified which of them simply do not qualify as a “technical means.” Specifically, “the collection of information, including when limited to particular content, is considered abstract.” Id at 7. “The analysis of information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithm, without more, as essentially metal processes is considered abstract.” Id. “The mere presentation of results of abstract processes of collecting analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is considered abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.” Id.
In view of these abstract elements, the court noted that the claims simply define “a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content” while not including “any particular assuredly inventive technology for performing these functions.” Id at 8. The court further clarified this distinction by comparing “computer-functionality improvements” on the one hand and “uses of existing computer tools in aid of processes focused on abstract ideas” on the other. Id.
So, what are these “technical means” which may provide for “computer-functionality improvements” and so help remove a claim from the realm of an abstract idea? Of course, neither the court nor any attorney can provide a specific definition since this would most likely preclude a novel invention. However, the court does suggest certain “technical means” which, based on case law, might have saved the claims, including:
“The claims do not even require a new or type of information, or new technique for analyzing it.” Id at 9.
The claims “do not require an arguably inventive set of components or methods, such as measurement devices or techniques, that would generate new data. Id (emphasis added).
The claims “do not invoke any assertedly inventive programming.” Id(emphasis added).
The claims “do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a ‘non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.'” Id at 10 (emphasis added).
The claims “do not require an arguably inventive device or technique for displaying information.” Id (emphasis added).
The claims do not “require an arguably inventive distribution of functionality within a network.” Id (emphasis added).
It would seem from these court-provided samples that a viable “technical means” needs to provide some inventive variation of the computer system on which the method is implemented. Specifically, something beyond implementing the method on an off-the-shelf computer or something beyond the functionality provided by a standard off-the-shelf operating system.
Why Every Business Should Conduct an Annual Insurance Coverage Review
Most New Jersey business owners purchase insurance policies, file them away, and assume they are protected if a claim arises. Without a regular insurance coverage review, many companies discover gaps only after a lawsuit, cyberattack, property loss, or other significant event occurs. An annual insurance coverage review can help businesses identify potential risks, ensure their […]
Demand Letters & Cease and Desist Letters: When to Send One (and When Not To)
Businesses and individuals often encounter situations where another party breaches a contract, fails to pay a debt, or continues harmful conduct. In many such disputes, a precisely drafted demand letter or cease-and-desist letter serves as a powerful legal tool. It can frequently resolve the dispute and avoid litigation. While demand or cease-and-desist letters can resolve […]
Key provisions in your contracts, including those relating to indemnification, insurance, and defense, are essential to contract risk management. While sometimes considered “boilerplate,” these provisions play a pivotal role when determining which party is responsible for certain costs and liabilities. They must always be negotiated and drafted carefully. Indemnification Clauses Businesses should never overlook the […]
Portability of estate and gift tax enables a surviving spouse to inherit any unused portion of their deceased spouse’s federal estate and gift tax exemption. So, if one spouse doesn’t utilize their full exemption, the surviving spouse can effectively double their exemption amount with regard to estate tax liability. For married couples, portability offers a […]
Pet Trusts in New Jersey and New York: A Practical Estate Planning Tool
For many of us, pets are more than companions—they are members of the family. Yet they are often overlooked or inadequately provided for when it comes to estate planning. A pet trust offers a legally enforceable way to ensure that your animal continues to receive proper care if you become incapacitated or pass away. As […]
For many New Jersey business owners, a closely held company represents decades of work, financial investment, and personal sacrifice. Trusts in business succession planning are one of the most effective tools for protecting that value, allowing founders to control how and when the business passes to the next generation while reducing the risk of disputes, […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
