[ad_1]
Innovators seeking patent protection for entertainment software inventions should be aware that all software inventions face patent eligibility issues.[1] Nonetheless, a patent practitioner experienced in software patent filings can help ensure maximum protection for software inventions.
most recent decision in Gouvera v. Spotify Music Provides an example of why a patent application for an entertainment software invention should be drafted according to a clear technical problem-solving framework in order to be accepted as disclosing patent-eligible subject matter.[2]
In September 2022, patent owner (and former music streaming company) Guvera lost a patent infringement case against music streaming giant Spotify after the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that Guvera’s patents did not qualify for patent protection .[3]
Guvera’s patent claims relate to methods of generating playlists with targeted advertisements. The Court for the Southern District of New York held that the patent claims at issue were aimed at abstract concepts and lacked an inventive concept, and thus did not qualify for patent protection under 35 USC § 101 (“Section 101”).
Since the Supreme Court of the United States Alice In a 2014 judgment, Section 101 was used to invalidate numerous software patents.[4] Alice And subsequent Section 101 case law has established that a software invention must include a function that provides a technical improvement.[5]
This Alice Part of the decision was to prevent the granting of patents for basic and well-known concepts (i.e., abstract ideas) that are only implemented by general-purpose computers.[6] as the court in Gouvera v. Spotify Music“Merely adding computer power to increase the speed or efficiency of a process does not confer patent eligibility.”[7]
application Alice The two-step test for subject matter eligibility, the court, at Gouvera v. Spotify Musicfirst identifying that Guvera’s patent claims are “directed to the abstract idea of matching content using data identifiers.”[8] Next, the court determined that the patent claims did not contain “inventive concepts” and therefore did not significantly increase the abstraction of content matching because, “[a]At the bottom, the claim recites a process for implementing the abstract idea of matching content on a computer,” and, “[a]Best of all, the patent increases the efficiency of content matching…”[9]
How could Guvera’s patent application have been drafted differently to avoid being invalidated under Section 101?
One of the more reliable ways to overcome the Section 101 challenge is to demonstrate that certain features in the patent’s claims provide an improvement in computer functionality.According to Section 101 case law, patent claims for improved computer functionality are no Targeting an abstract idea, therefore, qualifies for a patent.[10]
One of the more reliable ways to show that the features in the patent claims provide an improvement in computer functionality is to describe these features in the detailed description of the patent application within the framework of technical problem solving. One way to determine whether a feature provides a technical problem-solving framework is to ask whether the patent application explains how the feature enables a computer (that is, the device that runs the software feature) to function more efficiently than it would otherwise.
Guvera could not demonstrate that its claimed methods improved computer functionality.[11] It is worth noting that the patent at issue in this case, US Patent No. 8,977,633 (the “‘633 Patent”), does not contain a clear technical problem-solution statement.
The ‘633 patent provides insight into when software patents may be in danger of being invalidated under Section 101 because no part of the patent explains how any of the disclosed functions would allow a computer to function more efficiently. (Note: The ‘633 patent was filed in Alice Decide. )
In summary, when determining whether a software invention qualifies for patent protection, try to think about the idea in terms of how it improves the functionality of a computer in a way that is different from other methods.
[1] See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l573 US 208 (2014) (prescribed a two-step test for patent subject matter eligibility, which revolutionized the world of software patents).
[2] Guvera IP Ltd. 5. Spotify companyNo. 21-CV-4544 (JMF), 2022 WL 4537999 (SDNY Sept. 28, 2022).
[3] ID. at 1.
[4] 573 USA 208 (2014).
[5] see, for example, Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (F. Cir. 2016); Bascom Global. Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility LLC827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (F. Cir. 2016).
[6] Alice573 US at 223.
[7] Gouvera v. Spotify Music2022 WL 4537999, *7.
[8] ID. In; 4.
[9] ID. At the age of 7.
[10] fish culture822 F.3d at 1335 (explaining that “it is relevant to ask whether the claim is directed to an improvement in the function of a computer or to an abstract idea . . . the computer is invoked merely as a tool”).
[11] Gouvera v. Spotify Music2022 WL 4537999, *7.
[ad_2]
Source link