855-757-2757
Internet Law, Business & Data Security LawInternet Law, Business & Data Security Law
Internet Law, Business & Data Security Law
Lorenzo Law Firm
  • INTERNET LAW
  • DATA SECURITY LAW
  • FIRM
  • CONTACT
  • HOME
  • POSTS
FacebookTwitterLinkedinGoogle+Rss
 
  • INTERNET LAW
  • DATA SECURITY LAW
  • FIRM
  • CONTACT
  • HOME
  • POSTS

Software Distinctions and Ideas

October 8, 2018Leave a commentComputer Access, Computer Law, Computer process, Copyright Law, Idea Patent, Intellectual Property, Intellectual Property Law, International Copyright Law, litigation, news, Software Patent, Software Patents, Standing, Trade Secrets, Trademark LawBy Lorenzo Law Firm

Software distinctions from existing software presents a hiccup to many developers with novel ideas.  Software considerations to push for a patent will encounter nuances that need to be addressed.  The approval process has been presenting hurdles for software patent filings.  The hurdles are more about what contribution is being offered by the idea rather than the fact that someone came up with something that could be considered new.

For many idea people, not having a clearly stated specific enhancement to preexisting software in the marketplace has been a stumbling block to filing attempts.  Failing to satisfactorily describe a technical or functional improvements on introducing an innovative idea in comparison to existing software presents a setback.  Not distinguishing the innovation from previous filings and from what appears to be a conventional purpose and function is critical to a filing’s success.

The importance of the strength of the abstract understated.  Idea people must take seriously to iterate the process and function from abstraction to a conceptual point that can be described of the descriptive process about the functionality of the intended software.  What gets lost is the detail necessary to demonstrate valued distinctions that set it apart as a new filing from preexisting related applications and functions in the field within which the software inventor seeks.

This consideration for novelty was taken by the Supreme Court in the Alice[1] case, where the Court iterated the standard for overcoming a Rule 12(b) failure to state a claim for patent eligibility.  As articulated. “a patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.”  Furthermore, the Court has held that “Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” [2]  In Mayo, the Court stated that on the basis of patentability/validity determination that is determination that is independent of . . . any other statutory patentability provision.[3]  It is in Mayo, that the Court established its two-step process to assess patent filing that only provide for abstract ideas.

Initially, a consideration for the filing’s claim involves a concept that would not be  patent-eligible.  If that is established, then the next step would be to determine if the “the elements of each claim individually or in combination allows the filing to have the nature of the claim transform to a patent-eligible application.”[4]  As the Court filters through patent filings for software, the challenge is to discern what is truly novel and game changing on the software computing field and what is a routine process of imitation with different function, but still achieving the same without development and or improvement.

To this concern, the Court distills between software-related patent claiming an improvement to a process or system from those filings that are claiming language reciting an invention’s pinpoint discernable improvement to what has already been active in computing.  In its own discourse, the Court alludes to the close calls, i.e., “in other cases involving computer related claims, there may be close calls about how to characterize what the claims are directed to.”  That is, “some inventions’ basic thrust might more easily be understood as directed to an abstract idea, but under step two of the Alice analysis, it might become clear that the specific improvements in the recited computer technology go beyond “well-understood, routine, conventional activities” and render the invention patent-eligible.[5]

The Court in Bascom stated that the patent filing claims to “filtering content is an abstract idea because it is a longstanding, well-known method of organizing human behavior, similar to concepts previously found to be abstract.”  But what was distinctive, was the order of description of the specific function for the individual claims apart from what was conventional among computers, Internet Service Providers, networks, and filtering. The analytical inquiry into a claim’s patent eligibility weighs on the specific description of the inventive concept claimed.

The Bascom Court further elaborated, “the claims do not merely recite the abstract idea of filtering content along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet, or to perform it on a set of generic computer components. Such claims would not contain an inventive concept.” “Filtering content on the Internet was already a known concept, and the patent describes how its particular arrangement of elements is a technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering such content.”   The specific location for the filtering system which was to be a remote ISP server and allow the users to have the ability to adjust the filtering for their network accounts, distinguished it from the abstract concept of filtering in general.

Hence, a new way and an improvement was recognized as applicable to the claim being filed for a patent.  Description of steps of claims cannot solely be achieving a process by function but must point to the distinguishing feature of the intended innovation from the conventionally understood prior existing applied for ideas.  In essence, filing hiccups will continue for innovators seeking to file software idea,s as they seek to distinguish their novel idea from existing ones and theyseek to describe how they see distinguishing features, functions and improvements in their intended filing.  The marketplace is full of software application innovations, but ironically, not all are as uniquely distinct and innovative as it is conceived in the mind of the newest software idea person. The rigours of describing distinctions is an absolute point to all novel ideas.

[1]Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014)

[2]Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116 (2013) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Services. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012).

[3] Mayo, 132, S. Ct. at 1303–04 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978).

[4] Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1297.

[5] Bascom Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

anticompetitionapplicationscomputingCopyrightIdea PatentideasIntellectual Propertynoncompete agreementsnondisclosurePatentsprogramingSoftwarestandingTrade secretsTrademark
Related News
Data Privacy
October 31, 2019
Startup Business Cloud Service
September 26, 2019
Electric Cooperatives Oppose Choice
September 16, 2019
Internet Claims
September 5, 2019
Wireless Telecommunications Broadband Expansion
September 3, 2019
Injunctions Public Interest
September 1, 2019
Motion for Reconsideration
July 25, 2019
AI Artificial Intelligence Liability
April 12, 2019
Leave Comment

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

clear formSubmit

[contact-form-7 id="198" title="Contact Lorenzo Law"]

Meta
  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org
Meta
  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org
RSS Internet Law, Business & Data Security Law
  • Data Privacy October 31, 2019
    Data privacy of consumers has become a prevailing concern for many businesses and services related entities causing them to seek a balance for data privacy protection.  As data accumulates with every activity in the digital world, retaining that information securely is a critical responsibility.  Data privacy is critical with the process of sharing information for… […]
    Lorenzo Law Firm
  • Startup Business Cloud Service September 26, 2019
    Cloud service considerations for startups The post Startup Business Cloud Service appeared first on Internet Law, Business & Data Security Law.
    Lorenzo Law Firm
  • Electric Cooperatives Oppose Choice September 16, 2019
    Electric cooperatives could be regulated under the proposed ballot in Florida for the November 3, 2020 election.  Electric cooperatives are opposing choice of open electric market. Electric cooperatives are challenging the proposed ballot initiative that seeks to change the energy market in Florida.  Florida Energy Choice Initiative (FECI) seeks to have choice in the marketplace. … […]
    Lorenzo Law Firm
  • Internet Claims September 5, 2019
    Internet claims about what people experience negatively from the their use of the Internet is paramount.  Internet claims span from invasion of privacy, defamation, to misappropriating someone’s identity online. The Internet gives users a freedom that is immeasurable. It gives users more flexibility to express ideas and conduct activities.  Its use generates data about what… […]
    Lorenzo Law Firm
  • Wireless Telecommunications Broadband Expansion September 3, 2019
    The wireless telecommunications broadband expansion has a new horizon in Florida. Wireless telecom is seeing new life with Florida Wireless Expansion Act. The Act augments Florida’s 2017  Advanced Wireless Infrastructure Deployment Act, establishing a process that fosters broadband expansion. There is a new horizon for broadband communications and the use of wireless means of telecommunications.… […]
    Lorenzo Law Firm
  • Injunctions Public Interest September 1, 2019
    Considering public interest The post Injunctions Public Interest appeared first on Internet Law, Business & Data Security Law.
    Lorenzo Law Firm
  • Motion for Reconsideration July 25, 2019
    Motion for reconsideration of a court decision is so often thought as a wishful event.  Certain criteria may just allow that step to be taken to ask a court to reconsider its decision.  The distinction is not to ask for a new hearing when all you are seeking is for the court to consider its… […]
    Lorenzo Law Firm
  • AI Artificial Intelligence Liability April 12, 2019
    AI or artificial intelligence is applied delivering services in so many service areas. We see AI at store registers replacing cashiers.  There is AI in customer service call centers  stylizing call trees before we actually speak to a human being. Banking services implement AI in your banking process.   AI is also being used to… […]
    Lorenzo Law Firm
  • Small Business Website January 13, 2019
    Small business websites are crucial if a small business is expecting to have a chance of drawing customers.  The website becomes the image for the small business that is starting out.  A small business website can also hurt the chances for the business to grow.  The small business website has varied uses and it also… […]
    Lorenzo Law Firm
  • Startup Copyrights Use January 10, 2019
    Startup copyrights issues come up frequently in counseling legal sessions.  For many, they perceive that there is a open filed of content hat any startup can avail itself of that would help push their business forward. Not so, is the truth. Savvy business starters know that their intellectual property gives its business import and is… […]
    Lorenzo Law Firm
Recent Posts
  • Data Privacy
  • Startup Business Cloud Service
  • Electric Cooperatives Oppose Choice
  • Internet Claims
  • Wireless Telecommunications Broadband Expansion
RSS Unknown Feed
Internet Law, Business & Data Security Law

"Working to Protect Your Business, Ideas and Property on the Web."®

is a registered service mark of Lorenzo Law Firm, P.A., All rights reserved 2013 - 2019

Disclaimer | Privacy