{"id":138,"date":"2016-09-07T17:15:48","date_gmt":"2016-09-07T17:15:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ipaatentiti.com\/blog\/?p=138"},"modified":"2019-08-29T15:42:33","modified_gmt":"2019-08-29T15:42:33","slug":"federal-court-clarifies-test-for-patentable-subject-matter_abstract-ideas","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ipaatentiti.com\/blog\/federal-court-clarifies-test-for-patentable-subject-matter_abstract-ideas\/","title":{"rendered":"Federal court clarifies Test For Patentable Subject Matter_Abstract ideas"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Federal Circuit on Aug 1, 2016, upheld a district court\u2019s summary judgment against Electric in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.,<\/em> No. 2015-1778 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2016).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This case involves the eligibility for patenting, under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 101<\/strong>, of certain claims of three of Electric Power Group, LLC\u2019s patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 7233843, 8060259, and 8401710. Electric\u2019s claims were for methods and systems for real-time electric power grid monitoring across multiple sources by collecting and analyzing data and displaying results. The district court found that Electric\u2019s claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under Patent Act section 101.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The federal court affirmed the district court holding of invalidity of claims of the above U.S. Patents<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Though lengthy and numerous, the claims do not go beyond requiring the collection, analysis, and display of available information in a particular field, stating those functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over conventional computer and network technology. The claims, defining a desirable information-based result and not limited to inventive means of achieving the result, fail under \u00a7 101.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court applied the two-part analysis from Alice Corp. (also called the Mayo test) in determining the eligibility of subject matter under section 101.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under step one of the two-step Alice\/mayo<\/em> test (click here<\/a> to see the mayo test), the claims were no more than the abstract idea of \u201cgathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results without<\/strong> any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under the second Alice<\/em> step, there was insufficient inventive concept to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea<\/strong>. \u201cM<\/em>erely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes whose implicit exclusion from section 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The federal court agreed that Electric Power Group\u2019s asserted claims, rather than claiming \u201csome specific way of enabling a computer to monitor data from multiple sources across an electric power grid,\u201d some \u201cparticular implementation,\u201d they \u201cpurport to monopolize every potential solution to the problem\u201d\u2014any way of effectively monitoring multiple sources on a power grid. Whereas patenting a particular solution \u201cwould incentivize further innovation in the form of alternative methods for achieving the same result,\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Further the federal court agreed that, allowing claims like Electric Power Group\u2019s claims would \u201cinhibit innovation by prohibiting other inventors from developing their own solutions to the problem without first licensing the abstract idea\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Takeaway from this case is that claims directed to monitoring and analyzing data may be valid when a claim limitation with a specific way of using computer to monitor\/analyze data and its particular implements are included.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Click here<\/a> for the full opinion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Related Post: click here<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Federal Circuit on Aug 1, 2016, upheld a district court\u2019s summary judgment against Electric in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., No. 2015-1778 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2016). This case involves the eligibility for patenting, under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 101, of certain claims of three of Electric Power Group, LLC\u2019s patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 7233843, 8060259, and 8401710. Electric\u2019s claims […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[21,3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-138","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgement","category-patent"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipaatentiti.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipaatentiti.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipaatentiti.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipaatentiti.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipaatentiti.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=138"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/ipaatentiti.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":139,"href":"https:\/\/ipaatentiti.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138\/revisions\/139"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipaatentiti.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipaatentiti.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipaatentiti.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}