Determining whether computer-implemented technology is eligible for U.S. patent protection continues to be an endeavor subject to scholarly disputes and patent litigation. For example, a dispute over patent eligibility of claims to a system and method for processing (transmitting and visualizing) three dimensional images from two dimensional images is the subject of a recent U.S. Federal Circuit decision. AI Visualize, Inc. v. Nuance Communications, Inc.
Distilling the two competing arguments (for and against patentability) were (1) improved functionality of a computer vs (2) abstract idea without an inventive concept transforming the abstract idea to something more.
The Court found the claims were the later and not the former using the U.S. Supreme Court’s two step analysis of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l :: 573 U.S. 208 (2014). In a nutshell, the Court found the claims essentially directed to non-patent eligible data manipulation.
After you read the decision, see if you…
(1) agree with the Fed. Cir. and find the claims are directed to an abstract idea and nothing more, or
(2) disagree with the Fed. Cir. and believe the claims improve the function of a computer and therefore should be considered patent eligible.
Then, please opine if you find the two-step analysis works or if you find “Alice Does Not [Work] Here Anymore.”
I have some thoughts to improve a likelihood patent claims will satisfy the current Alice test for subject matter eligibility but would like to hear what others have to say before adding what I consider to be a successful strategy.
Also, comments on improvements of claim language that would be more likely to establish “something more” than data manipulation.
Continue on to the full OP-IP Law Blog
© Stephen J. Weyer 2024
(* Disclaimer: All views expressed are exclusively those of the authors and do not reflect the views of Stites & Harbison, PLLC)
No comments:
Post a Comment