You’ve probably sensed the hunger for an answer if you’ve read this blog at all over the past year. (And if you haven’t, we forgive you.) Everyone, including all nine Supreme Court justices, agreed that Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw’s patent application for a method of hedging weather-related risk in energy trading was properly denied by the Patent Office. That much was clear from the November 2009 oral arguments before the Court, in which the querulous justices peppered Bilski’s counsel with business method patent hypotheticals (speed dating, an 80%-effective method of keeping students awake during an antitrust class, a method of maximizing wealth by buying low and selling high, and horse whispering). The hypotheticals were only slightly more absurd than the reality with which businesses have been living since the Federal Circuit suggested in its 1998 ruling in State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group that methods of conducting business could be patentable if they produced a “useful, concrete and tangible result.”

The Bilski/Warsaw “invention” did not pass the smell test. The question was why? Inquiring technologists and IP lawyers wanted to know.

Abstract Ideas

In the end, the Court splintered. All the justices agreed that Bilski’s patent application taught an abstract idea or principle, and as such, according to well-established precedent, was not eligible for patenting as a “process” under 35 U.S.C. §101. Abstract ideas or principles, laws or phenomena of nature (even if just discovered) and mental processes are not patent-eligible subject matter because they are seen as the basic tools of scientific and technological work, and courts are careful not to permit any single person or entity to preempt their use. (However, as the Court’s opinion noted, the application of such concepts to a known structure or process can be patentable if it is novel, useful, non-obvious when viewed against the prior art and supported by a full and particular description in the patent application.)

All of the justices also agreed that the Federal Circuit had overstepped its bounds by holding that the machine-or-transformation test, which grounded the patentability of processes in their connection to a particular machine or physical transformation) was the sole test for determining whether a process met the threshold requirement for patentability. However, in a true mindbender, they also all agreed that the machine-or-transformation is still relevant, as an “useful and important” clue or investigative tool (in the Court’s opinion) or as a “critical” tool (in Justice John Paul Stevens’ concurring opinion). Of course, the justices could not agree on exactly how the machine-or-transformation test was still important, useful, critical, awesome, etc. In the Court’s opinion, the justices drew a dichotomy between Industrial Age inventions and Information Age inventions and suggested that the machine-or-transformation test might be the proper standard for evaluating processes in the first category, but from my perspective, trying to puzzle out whether a client’s invention is more like a steam engine or a search engine doesn’t seem like a particularly helpful — or intellectually satisfying — inquiry. Ultimately, the Court did not articulate a standard, beyond trotting out the abstract idea trope as a lowest-common-denominator limiting principle.

What About Business Methods?

So where does that leave us? In limbo, dear techies. The lower courts will have to go back to the drawing board to devise new standards for evaluating software and Internet patents. The Bilski opinion — or more accurately, opinions (for there were several concurrences) — do provide a few tea leaves to read. Business method patents survive, but by the skin of their teeth. The Court’s opinion leaves open the possibility that some business methods may be patentable, although the majority is skeptical that they warrant “broad patentability”, and in his concurring opinion Justice John Paul Stevens (joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg) argued strenuously that business methods should never be patentable.

The relevant part of the Court’s opinion (authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined in by Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas) had this to say with regard to business method patents:

“Interpreting §101 to exclude all business methods simply because business method patents were rarely issued until modern times revives many of the previously discussed difficulties…. At the same time, some business method patents raise special problems in terms of vagueness and suspect validity…. The Information Age empowers people with new capacities to perform statistical analyses and mathematical calculations with a speed and sophistication that enable the design of protocols for more efficient performance of a vast number of business tasks. If a high enough bar is not set when considering patent applications of this sort, patent examiners and courts could be flooded with claims that would put a chill on creative endeavor and dynamic change.

In searching for a limiting principle, this Court’s precedents on the unpatentability of abstract ideas provide useful tools…. Indeed, if the Court of Appeals were to succeed in defining a narrower category or class of patent applications that claim to instruct how business should be conducted, and then rule that the category is unpatentable because, for instance, it represents an attempt to patent abstract ideas, this conclusion might well be in accord with controlling precedent…. But beyond this or some other limitation consistent with the statutory text, the Patent Act leaves open the possibility that there are at least some processes that can be fairly described as business methods that are within patentable subject matter under §101.”

As previously mentioned, four justices (include three who remain on the Court) have taken the position that business methods are not patentable under any circumstances. It is also worth noting that Justice Antonin Scalia did not join in the portion of the Court’s opinion (quoted above) upholding the theoretical patent-eligibility of business methods. Therefore, at least three, and perhaps four, sitting justices reject business method patents totally, with four others rejecting their “broad patentability” and recommending that a higher bar be set. Notably, too, all of the justices take a dim view of the State Street opinion, with the majority refusing to endorse its perceived blessing of business method patents and Justice Stevens’ concurrence calling it a “grave mistake.” Forget abortion, gun rights and church-state separation: given this volatile mix, Elena Kagan’s views on patent law may assume paramount importance.

What Do I Do Now?

So what should software and Internet clients take away from all of this? Don’t blow your legal dollars on patents if the essential value of your invention or product lies in its algorithm or the fact that it automates or expedites a general business process. Despite the Court’s rejection of the machine-or-transformation test as the exclusive standard for the patent eligibility of processes, the Patent Office will only be emboldened by Bilski to continue its aggressive stance against business methods and software and Internet patents whose claims are broad and general and have only an ethereal connection to hard technology.

In addition, established companies with ample litigation reserves that are approached by patent trolls wielding business method and general process patents should consider the value of an upraised middle finger. If one such company (possibly co-funded by other similarly situated targets) succeeds in getting the troll’s patent invalidated, the troll’s business is vaporized. Accordingly, trolls may choose their targets more carefully from now on, may be more hesitant to follow through on threatened infringement litigation, and may be willing to take a smaller license fee before moving on to the next target. However, because business method patents survive and Bilski provides no concrete guidance for what qualifies as a patent-eligible process, the troll threat is not eliminated.

Towards Patent Act 2.0

Was Bilski worth the wait? I’d have to say no. On the other hand, perhaps the justices can’t be blamed for agonizing over our intellectual property law’s failure to come to grips with non-traditional inventions and the marginalization of brick-and-mortar innovation ecosystems. It’s time, perhaps, for Congress to step in and give us a Patent Act for the post-industrial age.

* Bilski’s patent application for a method of hedging risk in commodities trading was properly rejected because the invention was nothing more than abstract principles and formulae, which are not subject matter eligible for patenting according to prior Supreme Court decisions.

* There is no reason to exclude categorically business methods from the scope of patent eligible subject matter. A business method can be a patentable “process” if it meets the other statutory requirements for patenting (novelty, usefulness, etc.).

Still, if a major part of your business is a website or software application (including iPhone and Facebook apps), it’s well worth the time and (minimal) expense to put in place at least a simple contract with your developers. This contract should get signed BEFORE the developer begins any substantial work on the project

What you get with a solid developer contract

Why do you need a properly written contract with your developer?

1. Confidentiality. Ideas have legs — muscular marathon runner’s legs — and you don’t want your developer to walk the idea for your new website or app across the street. It’s difficult to protect still-inchoate ideas and requirements (as opposed to completed designs, specifications or prototypes) under intellectual property law, since bare ideas in the process of formulation are not copyrightable or patentable. Moreover, the allowance rate for business method patents is extremely low (presently under 10%), and the cost of prosecuting patents is typically tens of thousands of dollars, so you should not count on being able to patent your website, program or app even at a more advanced stage of development. What this means is that, besides avoiding disclosures except where strictly necessary, contract protection (i.e., a non-disclosure or “NDA” clause) is your best bet to protect your idea as it is being developed.

2. Intellectual Property Ownership. Even if a bare idea is probably unprotectable, at some point the development of your idea is going to lead to the creation of protectable intellectual property. In the context of web or software development, this could be some or all of the following: (1) code, web design, graphics, images, text and other creative content (all of which can be copyrighted), (2) logos, slogans, catchy domain names and similar branding features (which can be trademarked), (3) look and feel (which is potentially protectable as trade dress), and (4) in rare cases, patentable inventions (if your site, program or app does something new, useful and non-obvious in light of the current state of the art).

It is a widely held but mistaken belief that if you pay a contractor to do something for you, you automatically own all IP rights in the work product because it is a “work made for hire.” (In fact, even attorneys often make this mistake, as I was reminded when I was a reviewing an IP asset purchase agreement drafted by opposing counsel the other day.) “Work made for hire” is a copyright concept only; furthermore, with outside contractors, it applies only to select types of specially commissioned works like atlases, parts of motion pictures or other audiovisual works, tests and instructional texts, which are generally irrelevant to the context we are discussing — and even then, a written agreement stating that the works are “made for hire” is still required!

In plain English, what all this boils down to is: you don’t own it (even if you paid for it) unless there is a contract that says you do. To be legally effective, the contract must also assign all relevant copyrights, patent rights and other IP to your startup. Without such a contract, you only get a license (i.e., a narrow right to use), the developer still owns any copyrights and patents, and it is free to use or commercialize this IP elsewhere. Potential investors and acquirors looking at your startup will want to see that you have IP ownership buttoned down. If you don’t own your product, watch out.

3. Getting What You’re Paying For. In development parlance, this refers to scope and specifications: you are paying X for the developer to build you Y, with Y being fleshed out in as much detail as possible in the contract. The importance of getting this nailed down is best illustrated by a common horror story: Client goes to Developer and asks Developer to build a site with A, B and C features and functionality. Developer says sure, no sweat; it’ll cost you $5,000, half up front and half on completion.

Developer labors for a month before realizing that he seriously underbid the project, which is far more complicated than he had considered. So he stops work and informs Client: sorry, I can’t possibly make a profit on this deal, but because I’m a warm-hearted stand-up guy, I’ll agree to just keep the $2,500 you’ve already paid, even though I’ve done $6,000 of work. For this largesse I welcome any comparisons to Gandhi you care to make. Client, who is out $2,500 and doesn’t have a website, is not inclined to award any Nobel Peace Prizes.

Developers may cry foul at this narrative. The common argument I hear from developers is that clients think developing a website is like rehabbing a bathroom, i.e., the client knows what it wants and parameters of the project are fixed at the outset, so there is no scope creep. In contrast, the argument continues, development clients actually DON’T know what they want. Their requirements are constantly in flux, and they require endless rounds of revisions.

Fair enough. But this doesn’t undermine the case for a contract. Quite the opposite, it means a contract is urgently needed by both parties to manage expectations. The contracting process is an opportunity for both sides to crystallize and refine those expectations before money is spent — what will the basic functionality/features be? what platform will the site run on? how many rounds of revisions are included? what will additional revisions cost? And so on.

The idea is that scope is reduced to writing as much as possible at the discussion stage instead of during the thick of development (and ideally a process is defined to handle any requested changes in scope). If it is impossible or impractical to draft detailed functional specifications at this stage, they can be a deliverable to be approved by the client later. (For complex or expensive sites or programs, the parties may end up splitting the risk by handling functional specification development and actual coding as two separate projects, each covered by its own scope definition and cost parameters, with the client having the option whether or not to proceed to stage 2.)

4. Getting It When You Need It. Launch is everything to startups. If a site or program isn’t ready or isn’t debugged by the time desired, this creates all sorts of risks — risk of the competition getting a jump on you, risk of seed capital running out, cash flow risk if an expected stream of revenue is postponed, reputational risk if you’ve heavily promoted the launch and then have nothing (or nothing respectable) to launch. A well-drafted development contract, therefore, should include key deliverable milestones along with delivery dates, and payments should be tied to successful achievement of these milestones in order to incentivize developer performance. A meaningful portion of the development fee (a third or more) should be payable only after final delivery and successful completion of user acceptance testing.

5. Legal Stuff. This is the part that startups really hate, but it can be critical if a dispute arises (as it frequently does). Say a Philly client hires a developer in California to build a site for $10,000. The parties sign a contract, and the developer takes the client’s up-front payment of $5,000. The developer then absolutely does nothing and greets the client’s increasingly anguished entreaties with an upraised middle finger.

It doesn’t take a tech lawyer like me to tell you the developer breached the contract. But how does the client left in the lurch get a remedy? The contract says nothing about where disputes will be litigated (venue) or which state’s law will apply to the interpretation and enforcement of the contract (choice of law). The answer is that the client hires a California litigator at $500/hr to fight over these issues, as well as over the underlying breach-of-contract issue, and after spending $100,000+ in legal fees (and traveling to California to testify), after three to five years the client may get its $5,000 back or perhaps a court order forcing the developer to finish the site.

Obviously this is a losing economic proposition for any client, and it would be insane to sue, despite the legal merits of the case. On the other hand, let’s say the contract had provided that the law of enforcement would be Pennsylvania’s, that any litigation must take place in Philadelphia, and that the party prevailing in any litigation would be entitled to be reimbursed for its legal fees, in addition to any recoverable damages. The costs and risks of enforcement are now working in the client’s favor; it can now bring the suit in Philly, representing itself pro se if necessary, and force the wrongful party (the developer) to pay both sides’ litigation costs, which is a big stick indeed. Of course, there may still be reasons why litigation is not advisable (for example, the client would still need to get a California court to enforce the Philly court’s judgment, and the developer may not have sufficient assets to pay the client’s legal fees and damages, which defeats the whole purpose). However, the client’s ability to raise at least a credible threat of litigation, together with the possibility of much higher costs for the developer, thoroughly changes the dynamics of the dispute and gives the client greater leverage.

Avoiding the 15-Page Monstrosity

If you think that adequately addressing these considerations requires a 15-page contract which would take months to negotiate and consume thousands of dollars in legal fees, you’d be wrong. All of this can be easily hammered out in relatively simple language taking up a couple of pages. Legal fees should be minimal if you’re dealing with an attorney who knows technology and is used to working with startups (otherwise, you may very well get the 15-page monstrosity).

Your startup doesn’t need a perfect agreement with every conceivable bell and whistle; the perfect should never become the enemy of the good. But the basic issues I have described need to be covered. It’s no exaggeration to say that the costs of not obtaining basic protection, in terms of both money paid out to developers and lost future opportunities for your startup, are likely to vastly exceed the legal fees.

And, developers — this is for your own good too. Think about helping your clients by creating a simple contract template with some moderated version of these basic protections for the client built in, along with protections against scope creep and whatever payment terms you need for your business. Contrary to popular belief, contracts aren’t just (or even primarily) for hypothetical future litigation — if drafted well, they are litigation-preventers and value-enhancers, allowing projects to glide to completion along a pathway of smoothly aligned expectations.

Based on my reading of the November 2009 oral argument transcript and my conversations with patent experts, we predict that (1) the Patent Office’s rejection of Bilski’s application for a method of hedging risk in commodities trading will be upheld, (2) the Federal Circuit’s machine-or-transformation test will be invalidated as unduly limiting given the statutory language and history, BUT (3) we may see a new definition of patentable subject matter based upon some ethereal concept of “technology.”

The Supreme Court will next release decisions on Tuesday, June 1. Given the importance of this ruling to our software and Internet clients, we will post a link to the opinion and a brief summary on this blog as soon as it is issued, to be followed by a full analysis not long afterward.

Readers of this blog know that the Bilski case will set the new standard for patent eligibility of business methods. In 2008 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Patent Office in setting a strict machine-or-transformation test that essentially bars the patenting of business methods except where they are tied to or transform something physical. If the Supreme Court agrees, this could invalidate a lot of Internet and software patents.

In the oral arguments several justices — most notably the newest one, Sonia Sotomayor — seemed uncomfortable with the intellectual contortions of the machine-or-transformation test, yet agreed that on some level a patentable invention must involve “technology.” But what is “technology”? How do you define it? A software patent whose claims delve into the nuts-and-bolts of the effects the programming has on the host computer probably teaches “technology”, but is it possible to drill down any further?

Here’s hoping (if not expecting) that SCOTUS brings some real clarity so that going forward clients will know when they are up to their elbows in “technology.” In the meantime, check out my recent articles (actually one article that my editor broke into two pieces because it was so verbose!) on the oral arguments in the Bilski case here and here.

Seriously, protecting your idea in business discussions is critical, and it’s all about timing, covering your steps, and controlling the manner and scope of the disclosure. I’ve written a guide for entrepreneurs on how to approach these issues and some tools and tips to keep in mind. You can find it here. Of course, you should also consult a business and IP attorney.

Carpenters Hall at Yuletide

According to the PTO, the average time between filing and the first office action (PTO response) on a green technology patent application is 30 months, with the final action on the applications coming after 40 months on average. The PTO estimates that participation in the pilot program will shave a year off the time to get a green technology patent. Green technology eligible for the pilot program is defined as patent applications relating to environmental quality, energy conservation, development of renewable energy resources or greenhouse gas emissions reductions. You can download detailed eligibility and petition requirements on the PTO website here.

2. Online Privacy and Behavioral Advertising. Check out Yahoo!’s new Ad Interest Manager, which enables you to see information about your online browsing activities that Yahoo collects for targeted advertising purposes. The new site feature was unveiled with great fanfare on December 7, which — coincidentally? — was the same day the FTC kicked off the first of three new Privacy Roundtables examining online data collection for behavioral advertising and similar topics and the adequacy of current privacy rules and industry self-regulation.

Yahoo! may be ahead of the curve. The noises the FTC is making seem to indicate impatience and dissatisfaction with the current state of self-regulation in behavioral advertising (supposedly based on notice and choice, as provided in the behavioral advertising self-regulatory guidelines issued by the FTC in February 2009). More aggressive privacy regulation, as well as stepped-up administrative enforcement, may be on the way. Of course, this is exactly what I predicted last summer.

I am monitoring this situation closely, and if there is a new rulemaking, I am considering participating in the public comment process. I acknowledge the concern in government and academic circles about the ability to build profiles and derive personal information by associating and combining data on the Internet and applying behavioral analytics (connecting the dots to tease out or guess specific attributes of an Internet user, such as demographic information, based on browsing activity and clickstream data). However, as a matter of personal opinion I tend to fall into the “what privacy?” camp and am not convinced we are dealing with a full-scale public emergency that warrants shackling innovative new technologies and communication channels.

3. Workplace Internet Privacy Before the NJ Supreme Court. Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc., a New Jersey appellate court case I blogged about this past summer, was argued before the New Jersey Supreme Court on December 2. The issue in Stengart is whether an employee’s e-mails to her attorney using her personal web account are still covered by the attorney-client privilege in her suit against the employer where she accessed the account from a work computer. (The defendants’ counsel found the e-mails when imaging the computer’s hard drive during discovery.) The employer had a poorly drafted Internet use policy that (arguably) rendered all communications over the computer subject to monitoring, although the policy also allowed limited personal use of the computer.

The case is important, because if the Supreme Court agrees with the appellate court that the employee did have an expectation of privacy in the e-mails to her attorney, notwithstanding the Internet use policy, it could curtail employers’ previously untrammeled ability to regulate the use of their IT resources.

A finding for the employee seems likely, since the New Jersey Supreme Court is a liberal bench that has often taken a broadly protective approach to the attorney-client privilege. Also, at least two of the justices, including Chief Justice Rabner, seemed troubled by the employer’s reliance on the policy as support for its position that it could monitor anything transmitted using its computers.

The big question, then, is how broad or narrow the ruling will be. Was this a badly drafted policy that on its terms shouldn’t be construed to apply to such personal communications? Or going forward do all Internet use policies need to specifically call out the right to monitor communications using web-accessed personal e-mail accounts? Or (most radical) will an employer’s “unilateral” reservation of the right to monitor its IT resources be held unenforceable as a matter of public policy when applied to certain types of communications — such as e-mails to a “spouse, a physician or a cleric”? (The possibility of such employer monitoring appeared to disconcert Justice Albin.) If the court were to take the most radical approach, this might scare employers into slamming the door on ANY personal use of workplace computers and Internet access.

4. Data Breach Dixie-Style. Several restaurants in Louisiana and Mississippi, including the rustically named Mel’s Grill, Sammy’s Diner and Crawfish Town USA, have sued Radiant Systems, a provider of point-of-sale (POS) hardware and software, and the distributor Computer World, Inc. to recover fines and penalties imposed by Visa and MasterCard after a foreign hacker exploited security vulnerabilities to access the systems remotely. The plaintiffs, whose claims include negligence and breach of contract, allege that the POS solution was not compliant with the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) and that the distributor also was also out of compliance (according to the plaintiffs, among other things, the system retained sensitive credit card information unnecessarily and the distributor used the same password for 200 different systems). The plaintiffs also alleged that Radiant had, in fact, been warned about by Visa about the vulnerability of the POS system in 2007.

The negligence claims are significant because of the plaintiffs’ attempt to use PCI compliance to set the baseline for reasonableness in order to show that the defendants’ behavior was negligent. However, the plaintiffs will face an uphill battle if their contracts with the defendants contain the typical technology vendor/service provider legalese limiting product- and service-related claims to breaches of the narrow warranties given in the contract, disclaiming damages for lost or stolen data, characterizing third-party criminal acts as force majeure for which the vendor is not responsible, and limiting the customer’s recoverable damages to direct damages no greater than the fees paid for the defective product or service.

However this case unfolds, the loss suffered by the restaurants highlights the need to carefully scrutinize and negotiate technology agreements covering products that store or process sensitive personal information. The customer should strongly consider requiring the vendor/service provider to warrant that they have validated compliance with PCI and will update their product or service as needed to maintain compliance. The customer should also seek indemnification against claims and losses resulting from a data breach where the breach is attributable to a defect in PCI compliance. (Many vendors/service providers will scream at this, protesting that their prices don’t reflect assumption of these risks. The proper response to this is “why not?”, especially if a vendor/service provider hypes itself as being PCI-certified.)

Of course, don’t place absolute trust in having a strong contract; make sure you do your due diligence too.

More analysis soon. In the meantime, all you software and web startups should hold onto those patenting dollars unless your statutory one-year on-sale bar (i.e., the filing date for the patent must be no more than one year after the invention is first sold or otherwise commercialized or publicly disclosed) is about to expire.

Patenting Business Methods: The Floodgates Open – For a Time

Perhaps you’ve heard of In re Bilski, if not by name. At issue is the viability of business method patents, especially for processes that are implemented by computer or over electronic networks (namely the Internet). Most software and web patents are for business methods. After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confirmed in State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group, 149 F.3d 1368 (1998) (involving a patent for a tax-avoidance method) that methods of doing business could be patent-eligible subject matter if they produced a “useful, concrete and tangible result,” a flood of business method patents were issued during the dot-com boom of the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. This period also saw a commensurate spike in cease-and-desist letters and “offers to license” from holders of business method patents, many of them “patent trolls” who had no interest in commercializing their inventions, but only in extracting license fees and infringement damages from companies with little inkling that apparently routine or ubiquitous methods and processes could be patented.

With incredulity and outrage mounting in the early years of the new century, the courts and the Patent Office began to eyeball business method patents more skeptically and moved to stem the tide. In 2001, the court hearing Amazon.com’s infringement suit against Barnesandnoble.com wound up invalidating Amazon’s “One Click” patent for a single user-action electronic fulfillment method on the ground that it was obvious in light of the prior art. The Patent Office has now instituted a procedure whereby patents for computer-implemented business methods are given an independent second review, resulting in far fewer business method patents being issued and a corresponding decrease in applications. Unlike copyrights and trademarks, a patent is extremely expensive to apply for, maintain and defend against invalidation, requiring tens of thousands of dollars in attorney and filing fees — and if litigation is involved, that amount is usually multiplied tenfold or twentyfold. A good friend of mine who is a patent attorney laments, “A lot of what I do is talk people out of applying for patents.” That may hurt the firm’s bottom line, but it is the right attitude from a client service standpoint, particularly now that the availability of business method patents may be severely curtailed.

Bilski: Patentability Requires a Machine or Transformation of an Article

Which brings us back to Bilski. In that case, the Patent Office refused to grant a patent for a method of hedging risk in commodities trading, not on obviousness grounds (which was the issue in the Amazon case), but rather because the application was not directed to patent-eligible subject matter. To be patentable under the statute (35 U.S.C. §101) an invention must be a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” Business method patents are “process” patents. The Federal Circuit, hearing the patent applicant’s appeal, agreed with the Patent Office that the application did not describe a patent-eligible “process”. In its en banc (full panel) opinion, reported at 545 F.3d 943 (2008), the court rewrote the legal standard for patentability of business methods, throwing the validity of more than a decade of business method patents into question.

Under the generally controlling legal test (referred to as the machine-or-transformation test), a process is only patentable if (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing. (I call this the “generally controlling” test because the court speculated cryptically that some business methods could conceivably be patentable without satisfying the test, but did not care to elaborate.) The rationale for these limitations is that the patent statute was never intended to protect abstract principles, laws or phenomena of nature (even if just discovered) or mental processes, since, as the court put it, these are “the basic tools of scientific and technological work.” In the court’s view, requiring the limitation of process patent claims to a specific machine or the transformation of some specific matter safeguards against a patent owner pre-empting all uses of a fundamental principle that everyone ought to have resort to in the furtherance of progress.

The need to prevent any patent owner from pre-empting all uses of a principle leads to some further caveats. First, if a principle can only be implemented using a particular machine, limiting the patent claims to that machine will not turn the principle into a patent-eligible process. So, far example, in Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972), discussed extensively in Bilski, the Supreme Court held that a numerical algorithm for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary numerals was not a patentable process even when limited to a digital computer, since the algorithm will always be implemented on a computer. (This concept obviously has great significance for the validity of many software and Internet business method patents.) Secondly, limiting the patent claims to a single field of use also will not make a patent-eligible process. As the Bilski court noted, if the opposite were true, then one could patent the Pythagorean theorem as used in surveying. Finally, “insignificant” pre- or post-solution activity, such as data gathering or recording a result, which may involve some peripheral use of a machine or a transformation of matter, does render a principle patentable. Of course, what activity is “insignificant” is less than clear and will be the subject of much future patent litigation.

Applying the machine-or-transformation standard with these caveats, the Federal Court affirmed the Patent Office’s denial of the patent claims for the risk hedging method. It also eviscerated (without formally overruling) its ruling in State Street by holding that the “useful, concrete and tangible result” standard is no longer valid. At the same time, it rejected the proposition that business methods are never patent-eligible subject matter. Since the patent statute allows a patent to be issued for a “process,” a business method is patentable subject matter if it is tied to a particular machine or transforms an article into a different state or thing.

If the Supreme Court affirms the Federal Circuit’s reasoning, most business methods implemented through software or Internet will no longer be patentable. As discussed by the Federal Circuit in Bilski, the Supreme Court, in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), held that a software algorithm can be used to control the execution of a physical process (curing rubber) which is patentable when considered in its totality, i.e., including the software component. Likewise, the court noted that manipulation of electronic signals or data can form a patent-eligible process (on the basis of a transformation of matter) if the signals or data are not abstract but represent tangible physical objects (e.g., X-ray data that is manipulated to produce images of bodily organs). However, the business method in Bilski involved, at most, the transformation of risks and liabilities, which as intellectual abstractions are not eligible “articles.”

Should I Patent?

What do all of these arcane patent rules mean for technology clients? One the one hand, investors see patents as valuable assets, and so they are – if they are actually issued and the claims are broad enough so that a competitor can’t easily maneuver itself outside their reach. A “patent pending” notice also lends gravitas to one’s website and marketing materials (you can use this notice just by filing a provisional patent application, by the way). However, rejected patents and narrow patents do very little good for anyone, except the lawyers, of course.

Whatever the Supreme Court ruling in the Bilski case (and I expect an affirmation of the Federal Circuit’s approach at least in part), the change in the legal landscape will be largely limited to process patents and to business method patents in particular. Someone looking to obtain a patent in a composition of matter, a machine or a manufacturing process should not stop the patent train to await the Court’s ruling; while some general concepts in Bilski, namely the unpatentability of natural phenomena, mathematical formulas, etc., are applicable to all types of patents, as a practical matter, unless you’re trying to patent some naturally occurring compound, for example, the case doesn’t have much relevance if your invention is not a business method. On the other hand, I would strongly advise clients desiring protection in pure software or Internet processes to file a provisional patent application at most (which is cheap) but hold off any non-provisional patent application for a few more months. (You can file a patent application up to one year after the invention is first publicly sold or used or disclosed in non-confidential fashion.)

Consider Trade Secret Protection for Software and Other Business Methods

Moreover, unavailability of patent protection, or of broad patent protection, does not mean the total absence of intellectual property protection. Clients and counsel evaluating IP protection strategies for a new invention often overlook the need to balance the costs and benefits of patent protection against those of trade secret protection. (Software is also protectible by copyright.)

Patent protection is, by definition, a grant of exclusivity in a limited set of claims for a limited period of time (20 years) in exchange for disclosing a new, useful and non-obvious invention into the public domain. Patent applications become public after 18 months (whether or not a patent is actually issued) unless the applicant disclaims foreign patent protection. If no patent is issued or protection is granted in only a narrow set of claims, the applicant has obtained little or no competitive advantage for its money, and now the secret is out. On the other hand, by instituting procedures to treat a proprietary process or business method as a trade secret, such as internal access restrictions, limitation of external disclosures, use of confidentiality agreements, confidential or proprietary legends on material relating to the process or method, and logging who has contact with it, a company can preserve legal rights against usurpers for a theoretically indefinite period of time. Trade secret protection requires no legal fees and no filing fees. (Copyright protection requires nominal legal and filing fees.) If the Supreme Court embraces the Federal Circuit’s reasoning in Bilski, trade secret (and copyright) protection should supplant patent protection as the optimal strategy for many software and web clients.

As always, stay tuned. Oral arguments before the Supreme Court have been scheduled for November 9. You can expect to find updates on those arguments, as well as an analysis of the Supreme Court’s opinion and what it means for your business, on this blog as events unfold.

A radiant weekend in the Old City

1. Entity Formation. Choice of entity is key. Find some sort of limited liability structure that gives you pass-through federal tax treatment (i.e., the entity’s income passes through to your personal tax return rather than being separately and duplicatively taxed). Either an LLC or an S Corp. would qualify. And don’t think you have to incorporate in Delaware. Pennsylvania has made a conscious effort to compete with Delaware for incorporations, and it’s really cheap and easy to form and maintain an entity here. The Pennsylvania Department of State Corporation Bureau has a website which allows you to check the availability of your desired business name and obtain the forms needed to start the business. It costs $125 to incorporate an LLC or corporation in Pennsylvania. Personally, due to the minimal registration fees, taxes and paperwork involved, I like the Pennsylvania LLC, assuming the business is headquartered here.

If you have or expect to admit partners into the business, you should have an LLC operating agreement addressing such issues as voting rights, management responsibilities, transferability of membership interests, allocation of income and losses, etc., but if it’s just you in the business for the time being, this is not critical. The bottom line is that for a small, relatively simple web startup, entity formation issues shouldn’t cost thousands of dollars in legal fees.

2. Trademarks. You or your attorney should do a quick trademark search in the searchable database on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office website (go to www.uspto.gov and click on “Trademarks”) for the name of your business or website and any prominent catchphrase or slogan you plan to use on the site. What you are looking for are trademarks or applications for trademarks that are the same or similar to your mark and are used (or applied for) in connection with similar goods or services. This is a rough approximation of the legal standard for infringement of trademark rights (”likelihood of confusion” between two marks based on the two key factors cited above, as well as other factors like similarity of commercial impression, sophistication of target consumers, overlap of channels of trade, etc.). You should also run Google searches to identify similar terms and business names, since it is possible for another business to have “common law” trademark rights in a mark even if it isn’t federally registered.

The point of this exercise is to gain some comfort that you won’t be infringing someone else’s trademark, in which case you could be liable for damages (possibly treble damages and attorney’s fees for willful infringement) and would have to change your mark and/or domain name. The searches and analysis shouldn’t use more than a few hundred dollars of attorney time, unless the searches reveal a number of potentially problematic third-party marks and you want your attorney to investigate all of them in order to refine the risk assessment.

If a lot of money was being invested to develop a brand, you would want to perform a more rigorous (and expensive) search that would cover state trademark, business name and fictitious name registries, as well as additional “common law” sources like databases of publications, but this can cost thousands of dollars in attorney time and third-party search agency fees. A quick and dirty “knock-out” search of the type I have described should suffice for a small web startup without much seed capital.

You should also think about filing a trademark application to protect your rights in your mark against third party users, assuming that the searches of the USPTO trademark database and the Internet searches uncover no other marks that are confusingly similar, and that your mark is “distinctive,” i.e., is not a generic term for or descriptive of your goods or services. As of September 15, it will cost $375 to file a trademark application per class of goods or services ($325 if you file electronically), and each application should cost no more than $200 of attorney or paralegal time (excluding trademark search costs), unless you are applying for a lot of different goods or services. (To limit attorney and filing fees, talk to your attorney about what goods/services you should apply for now and what can wait.).

Of course, if the Trademark Office rejects your application, and you want your attorney to respond to their objections, this means more legal fees. If the Trademark Office is objecting to the mark itself (on descriptiveness or likelihood of confusion grounds, for example), rather than to some technical aspect of your application, the fees could run an extra grand or two, since your attorney will have to perform research and prepare a short brief. Having said that, you can always abandon the trademark application if it becomes too costly to proceed. Also, a good trademark attorney will be able to anticipate these types of objections at the search stage, so you should ask about your chances of actually obtaining a registration before you file the application.

You are not required to file a trademark application to use a trademark. You only need to do this if it’s important to scare off (by obtaining powerful legal remedies) third parties who may want to use the same or a similar mark. Investors will want you to register your key marks (such as your website name), but this is certainly not something that must be done prior to launch. If you decide to wait to file a trademark application, you should still make sure you place a TM (or SM for “service mark,” if you are offering services under the mark) superscript by the first prominent use of the mark on your homepage and in any marketing materials for the site.

3. Copyrights and Copyright Licenses. Website code, content and design are all copyrightable if they reflect a modicum of creativity and are not purely functional. Copyright comes into existence once a creative work is written down or recorded, i.e., you do not need to have a Copyright Office registration to own a copyright. Registration is necessary to exercise legal remedies against infringers, but again, this is something you don’t need to worry about right out of the gate.

What you do need to worry about right away is making sure you have the proper rights in all code and content used for your website. By “proper rights,” I mean owning the copyrights in materials designed or developed specifically for your site (HTML code, creative, look and feel, etc.), and suitably permissive license rights in third-party content (like clip art, stock photos and music) used on the site. With respect to the first category, specially created materials, keep in mind that the author (i.e., the programmer, web designer or web developer) owns the copyright unless he or she transfers it to you by written assignment. Therefore, without a signed development agreement or copyright assignment containing the necessary language, you get only a limited license to use developed materials, and the developer can do basically whatever they want with them or give them to someone else.

Do NOT, therefore, have someone design or develop a website for you without some sort of written contract. Investors will want to see that you own the copyrights in your site and have the documentation to prove it. The last thing you want to have happen, once your site becomes a success, is some third party come out of the woodwork claiming that they are entitled to royalties or demanding a right to consent to a planned sale, modification or exploitation of the site. An attorney can help you with this process. A simple copyright assignment should cost you $200 or less.

With respect to third-party content, make sure you read the license agreement to confirm that your planned use is within the scope of the license and there are no nasty surprises. (Of course, to do this you first need to make sure you HAVE the license agreement.) Don’t assume that because music or an image is lifted from a “stock” or “royalty free” source you can do whatever you want with it. For example, some “royalty free” licenses prohibit use of the licensed image for commercial websites or in promotional materials. You can take the first stab at looking at the agreement or agreements yourself, and bring in your attorney if you have questions. Make sure that any web developer or designer you use understands your concern about third-party licenses, and if you have a contract with them, the designer/developer should warrant that all content is either original or comes with license rights sufficient for you to operate and use the site for its intended purposes.

4. Other Contract Issues. Depending on how much you are willing to negotiate with your web developer or designer, you may also want to include additional safeguards in the contract such as business and functional requirements and specifications, acceptance criteria, milestones and deadlines, caps on fees, etc. If you are on a tight time schedule, think about negotiating a holdback of 1/3 or 1/2 of total fees until the website has been completed and you have verified there are no major outstanding issues. Again, this is not a legal requirement, just a good idea. A simple one or two page contract (which would include an assignment of copyrights) should not cost you more than a few hundred dollars in legal fees.

5. Website Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. If your website is in any way interactive, you should have legal terms of use and a privacy policy (indeed, the latter is required by the Federal Trade Commission and some states’ privacy laws if personally identifiable information such as name, address, e-mail address, Social Security or driver’s license number, and/or credit card or other account numbers are collected on the site). Contrary to popular opinion, not all terms of use and privacy policies are standard boilerplate.

With regard to terms of use, the legal risks and issues involved in a social networking site, a financial services site or an online store for power tools are going to differ from those for a passive site where users can coo adoringly over snapshots of puppies. In addition, a site that invites the submission of user content, such as blog posts, photos or videos, will need to have a Digital Millennium Copyright Act take-down policy to immunize the site operator from copyright infringement liability relating to content posted by third-party users. To be truly protective, the terms of use must be tailored to these risks and issues. Also, keep in mind that some legalese can scare website users (as Facebook learned to its chagrin earlier this year when its terms of use briefly stated that Facebook would own content that its users uploaded onto the site).

As for the privacy policy, you should think beforehand about (1) what types of personally identifiable information you will collect, (2) with what types of third parties (service providers, marketing partners?) this information may be shared, (3) what types of uses you foresee making of personally identifiable information, and (4) how, if at all, cookies, pixels and flash objects will be used on the site to collect information from users and how such information will be used and shared (e.g., will the information be shared with marketers or advertising networks for behavioral advertising?) Obviously, these decisions are partly cultural — how much comfort do you want to give your website users on privacy? If you have thought carefully about the specifics of your privacy regime (how information will be collected, used and shared) before having a conversation with your attorney, this will reduce your legal fees. If you plan to collect personally identifiable information from international users on your site, you should also bring this up with your attorney, since the European Union has much stricter privacy laws than the U.S.

Depending on the nature, features and complexity of your site, drafting the terms of use and privacy policy may mean spending anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars on legal fees. In my humble opinion — and I may be ducking rotten tomatoes from my fellow bar members for saying this! — it should not cost more than this, unless the site is extremely elaborate (Amazon) or the client extremely picayune. With that said, however, sites that offer highly regulated or controlled products or activities (such as online gambling, liquor, health supplements, contests or sweepstakes) or are targeted at children may also require additional disclosures (e.g., contest rules) or controls (e.g., a process to obtain parental consent for the collection of personal information from children under 13) beyond the terms of use and privacy policy, which, of course, will cost extra.

Painful as the legal fees may be, terms of use and privacy policies fall within the old adage, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” They are necessary shields against legal and regulatory liability. Additionally, with the FTC, in particular, sounding off on how certain behavioral tracking disclosures (among other things) should not be buried in legalese and also getting cranky about ways websites should notify their users about material changes in terms of use and privacy policies, you need to have these documents drafted by a pro.

6. Web Copy Review. Your attorney, who is probably thirsting for billable hours in these grim times, would love nothing better than to take a red pen to your site copy and etch out every conceivable source of risk. For most sites that are launched with little seed capital and do not feature heavily regulated or high-risk products or activities (gambling, liquor, financial services, sweepstakes or contests, material targeted to children, etc.), this is probably overkill. Having said that, it is a good idea to have a business lawyer with some experience in online promotions do a quick, high-level pass through the site to see if there are any major issues. For example, if you use certain terms like “Free” or “Guaranteed,” these carry with them special legal obligations and disclosure requirements. You also want your terms of use and privacy policy to be legally binding on your site users, so it is worthwhile to have an attorney eyeball the process or flow by which these documents are presented to and accepted by users.

To give yourself a reasonable degree of comfort, ask your attorney to spend an hour (but no more) clicking through the test site, and then see what he or she comes back with.

No doubt this quick checklist will provoke howls of outrage from some business lawyers who will note scores of issues that I have either glossed over (business structure and governance issues) or omitted entirely (patents, vesting of equity for partners who make service contributions). They are correct — this is not a comprehensive blueprint for launching a new business. If you have the legal budget for that, please give me a call. Please. My point is that if you’re just a small entrepreneur without angel investors or a powerful VC sugar daddy behind you and and you only have a couple of thousand dollars or less to spend on a lawyer, you need to know where you can get the most legal bang for your buck now, and what you can defer for a few months until the business starts to generate revenue.

Which is why I’ve discussed copyrights and trademarks (which are relatively cheap and are also easy for a web business to infringe unknowingly) but not patents (which, now that the golden age of business method patents is definitely over, are less relevant to ordinary web businesses; if you feel you’ve invented something really novel and useful, definitely raise the patenting issue with your attorney, but know that it can cost tens of thousands of dollars in legal and filing fees to apply for a patent, and, in any case, you have up to a year from your first public disclosure or commercialization of the invention to file your patent application). I could give you other examples, but you get the picture.

One additional disclaimer (of course, we love disclaimers!): the figures and ranges I have given above for attorney fees represent my opinion of what these various services should cost, not necessarily what an actual firm will charge you. They are ballpark estimates to help you decide what services are most important to you and fit within your budget. Hopefully they will also facilitate a fruitful conversation with your attorney about managing costs. If you do not have this conversation at the outset, do not be surprised if you do end up getting charged a lot more.

Consulting a good business and e-commerce lawyer is a necessary part of launching a web business. Like any other professional, we have a suite of services we want to sell you. All are useful, but they need to be prioritized. A good business lawyer will do this for you, but sometimes you have to ask.