Baer Business Law – Greater Philadelphia Area – Intellectual Property Law – Business Law – E Commerce – Contracts – Trademarks – Copyrights

Now that Justice Sotomayer has taken her place on the Supreme Court, SCOTUS watchers are abuzz about what role she may play in deciding controversial cases over abortion, gun control and similar issues. I, however, have become numbed to the culture wars. The ruling I am most eagerly anticipating in the Court’s new term is in In re Bilski, a case that involves the technical requirements of patent eligibility and has no sex appeal whatsoever, but has the potential to remake the world of intellectual property protection, particularly for software- and Internet-related inventions.

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.