Software and Business Process Patents in the US: Not so Eligible - August 2009

The patenting of software and business methods,when applying the ‘machine-or-transformation'
one of the more controversial strands oftest. First, ‘the use of a specific machine or
protection offered by intellectual property regimestransformation of an article must impose
in modern times, has traditionally been moremeaningful limits on the claim's scope to impart
accessible to inventors in the United States thanpatent-eligibility'. Second, "the involvement of the
to their European counterparts.machine or transformation in the claimed process
Persuasive arguments exist both against and inmust not merely be insignificant extra-solution
favour of protection. Apologists contend thatactivity".
software patents provide newcomers with aEach prong of the machine-or-transformation test
powerful tool with which to secure themselves ahas been applied in the courts, in Bilski itself the
place in the market when faced with toweringCAFC concerned itself only with the second issue,
competition from established corporations, such asleaving to future cases the ‘elaboration of the
IBM and Microsoft. On the other hand criticsprecise contours of machine implementation, as
suggest that patent stockpiles and cross-licensingwell as the answers to particular questions, such
agreements between these large companiesas whether or when recitation of a computer
make the market inaccessible to smallersuffices to tie a process claim to a particular
innovative companies, who lack the corporatemachine'. To understand the court's analysis a little
clout to secure such arrangements, and mustbackground of the pertinent claims in Bilski is
tread carefully through a minefield of potentialrequired.
litigation. In a different vein, computer scientistsTransformation of a particular article into a
demonstrate inconsistency in the law throughdifferent state or thing: Bilski
semantic analyses of legislation, arguing thatThe invention claimed relates to the provision to
algorithms ought to be excluded from protectionconsumers of a fixed-price contract for
as abstract mathematical formulae.‘commodities' such as coal, oil or gas. It is
Irrespective of the position taken, this class ofclearly described in the applicant's petition to the
protection is of immense importance toSupreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which
innovators operating in markets which rely onrefers to the higher court the question of
technology, where a firm grasp of this branch ofwhether the machine-or-transformation test is
the law is vital. Difficulty lies in the pace at whichappropriate to use when determining
the law is developing to cope with emergingpatent-eligibility for this type of invention. The
markets, and to accommodate the polarisedclaims relate to a system whereby an
views of influential players.intermediary, operating between consumers and
A gradual shift towards patent-eligibilitycommodity suppliers such as a gas provider, may
In the years leading up to 2008 the state of thehedge the related risks. Simply put, a
law in the US was regarded as relatively receptivemathematical formula is employed, along with
to this type of patent, however, the scene hadstatistical analysis of the risks involved, in order to
initially been set by three cases decided by thedetermine a fixed price payment plan for the
Supreme Court: In Gottschalk v. Benson it wasconsumer which aims to protect the supplier from
held that algorithms, by their nature abstracta drop in demand due to unforeseen
ideas, were not patentable by themselves; Incircumstances (such as a warmer winter leading
Parker v. Flook it was explained that an inventionto a reduced demand for gas), and simultaneously
which fails the test of novelty, but for a newobviate the risk to the consumer from increased
algorithm, is not rendered patentable by thatcosts due to a surge in demand (for example a
development; and in Diamond v. Diehr the courthigher gas bill after a colder winter).
held that while software itself was not eligible forThe CAFC held in Bilski (now Bilski v. Doll) that the
protection, the inclusion of a software element inlegal obligations and business risks on which their
an application would not disqualify it if the inventioninvention operate do not satisfy the second prong
claimed was otherwise patentable.of the test because "they are not physical
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuitobjects or substances, and they are not
(CAFC), in the case of In Re Alappat, deemedrepresentative of physical objects or substances".
software employed to improve the appearanceBilski did not make a case to satisfy the first
of information shown on a display patentable,prong of the test, and so the subject matter was
formulating the ‘useful, concrete, and tangibleheld patent-ineligible. A writ of certiorari has
result' test, which would later be reaffirmed inrecently been granted, and the Supreme Court
State Street. While on a first reading this testwill weigh in with a final ruling on the matter, but
may appear to restrict patentable software tothe case has already been relied upon in
that which produces real-world physical effects,subsequent decisions, which have elaborated on
separate from its own execution, it encompassedthe first issue.
a far broader range of applications. For example,Tied to a particular machine or apparatus:
the court found, in the case of In Re Lowry, thatDealerTrack
data structures (means of arranging andThe Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
accessing information in computer memory)has held in a number of cases that claims which
achieved such results by affecting the state ofassert that their subjects are tied to general
electrical or magnetic structural elements inpurpose machines will not meet the required
memory, and thereby providing increasedthreshold. Reference to some of these can be
efficiency in computer operation.found in the case of DealerTrack v. Huber, in
In State Street the court later held thatwhich the defendants successfully employed the
mathematical algorithms were patentable in themachine-or-transformation test to obtain
context of applications meeting the test set out insummary judgment of invalidity against the
Alappat, namely those yielding a ‘useful,holders of a patent bringing a suit for infringement.
concrete, and tangible result', and simultaneouslyIn DealerTrack the complainants argued that the
stated that business methods were not primaclaims of their patent satisfied the test by virtue
facie excluded from protection, holding that theyof being tied to: "a specially programmed
should be treated the same way as any othercomputer hardware and database"; a "remote
process. The ruling led to an influx of softwareapplication entry and display device"; and a
and business method applications, classes within"remote funding source terminal device". The
which the number of patents filed has growncourt rejected these arguments, reducing the
rapidly.elaborately named devices to "any device", and
The machine-or-transformation testnoting that the patent did not specify how the
In light of the recent developments in thecomputer hardware and database were "specially
jurisprudence provided by the cases of In Reprogrammed". The second prong of the test was
Bilski and DealerTrack v. Huber, the security ofnot at issue and the patent was held to be invalid.
this investment in intellectual property is uncertain.Concluding remarks
Bilski revolved around a patent for a method ofIn conclusion, while the US patent regime has
‘managing the consumption risk coststraditionally been relatively permissive to software
associated with a commodity sold at a fixed priceand business method inventions, it appears that
for a given period'. The CAFC held that the earlierthe courts are regressing in their interpretation of
‘useful, concrete, and tangible' test wasthe law as set out by 35 U.S.C. § 101 (governing
inappropriate, and instead distilled a newpatentable subject matter) towards the position
formulation from the jurisprudence of thetaken by the Supreme Court in the Benson,
Supreme Court. To meet the requisite criteria forFlook, and Diehr trio of cases. We eagerly await
patentability as a process under Bilski an inventionthe opinion of the Supreme Court in the Bilski
must either:case, which will hopefully clarify things, and
(a)    be tied to a particular machine orpotentially deal a considerable blow to the value of
apparatus, orcountless patent portfolios. Until then prospective
(b)   transform a particular article into aapplicants would do well to exercise caution when
different state or thingdeciding to file for a patent.
Two considerations were held to be important