The Effect of Alice and Its Progeny in 2020 on Software and 3D Printing Patents

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? Claimed “device profile” was intangible; method claims covered organization of information untethered to specific structure.

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? The claims are about creating a contractual relationship that is performed by any general purpose computer.

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? Offering media in exchange for viewing an advertisement is an abstract idea. Implementing it on the internet does not transform it into patent eligible.

✔ Step 1
✔ Step 2

Patent Eligible
Why? Claims addressed a specific internet problem, not a longstanding business practice, and provided a specific technical solution.

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? The method claims were "directed to the patent-ineligible abstract idea of comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations," which "require merely comparing the patient's gene with the wild-type [sequences] and identifying any differences that arise."

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? “Beyond the abstract idea of offer-based price optimization, the claims merely recite “well-understood, routine conventional activit[ies],” either by requiring conventional computer activities or routine data-gathering steps.”

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? “Where claims of a method patent are directed to an application that starts and ends with a naturally occurring phenomenon, the patent fails to disclose patent eligible subject matter if the methods themselves are conventional, routine and well understood applications in the art.”

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? The patent attempted to claim all methods of retaining data in an online form with no restriction.

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? “The budgeting calculations at issue here are unpatentable because they “could still be made using a pencil and paper” with a simple notification device.”

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? The abstract ideas of determining a price for a product were all routine and conventional ideas well-known to the industry and simply performed by a computer.

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? Each step of the claims could be performed by a human without a computer. Simply adding a computer does not make the claims patent-eligible.

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? The claims recited rules for playing blackjack and adding elements regarding shuffling and dealing physical cards did not make them patent-eligible.

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? “The claim is directed to a natural law—the principle that certain non-coding and coding sequences are in linkage disequilibrium with one another.”

✔ Step 1

Patent Eligible
Why? Claims direct to specific improvements to computer functionality, rather than abstract ideas where computers are merely invoked as a tool, are patent-eligible.

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? The claims were directed to the use of conventional technology in a well-known environment, and did not set forth an inventive solution to any problem.

✘ Step 1
✔ Step 2

Patent Eligible
Why? The arrangement of the filtering tool recited in the claims was unconventional, and the patent specification discussed how this particular arrangement was an improvement over the prior art.

✔ Step 1

Patent Eligible
Why? The claims were directed to “new and useful laboratory technique for preserving hepatocytes.”

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? Claims that merely require the selection and manipulation of information do not render patent-eligible the abstract processes of information collection and analysis.

✔ Step 1

Patent Eligible
Why? Claims are patent-eligible when they provide a specific method of improving computer technology, and rely upon their particular technologies to make those improvements.

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer will not transform it into something patent-eligible, even if that idea is limited to a technical field of use.

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? The claims did not provide a concrete solution to the patent’s proposed problem; they simply claimed an abstract idea with no inventive concept to transform the patent.

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? Implementing an abstract idea on an internet network or generic computer will not transform it into something patent-eligible.

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? Claims did not solve a problem specifically arising in computer technology; they were directed to the broad concept of monitoring audit log data.

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? “The Asserted Claims make no mention of employing a computer or any other physical device, they are so broad as to read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper.”

? Step 1
✔ Step 2

Patent Eligible
Note: The court assumed without deciding that Step 1 was not met.

Why? The claims did not combine the components in a generic manner, and most of the claims included sufficient structural limitations to render them patent eligible.

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? “The invention merely claims the addition of conventional computer components to well-known business Practices.”

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? The claims were directed to the abstract idea of collecting, displaying, and manipulating data, using generic computer components and conventional computer data processing.

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? The claims recited “no more than routine steps involving generic computer components and conventional computer data processing activities to accomplish the well-known concept of creating and using an index to search for and retrieve data.”

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? Remotely accessing and retrieving information is an “age-old practice,” and the claims merely recite generic computer implementations of the abstract idea.

✔ Step 1

Patent Eligible
Why? Claims were directed to a new and useful technique for using sensors to more efficiently track movement; they were directed to the application of physics, not an equation itself.

? Step 1
? Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Note: The court found the patent invalid under In re Nuijten (2007), rather than under Alice.

Why? “Carrier waves” are similar to transitory signals, which are not a patent-eligible “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.”

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? Encoding and decoding data is abstract, and the addition of an equation to derive an image code based on a “multiplication operation” is not an inventive concept that makes the claims patent eligible.

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? Claims are directed to the abstract idea of processing an application for a purchase (similar to intermediated settlement in Alice) using conventional computer elements.

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? The claims related to observing a law of nature and then simply comparing those observations to control values.

✔ Step 1

Patent Eligible
Why? Claims are directed to an improved computer memory storage system, rather than to the abstract idea of categorical data storage.

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? Claims recited the abstract idea of relaying mailing address data through conventional encoding and decoding, and contained no meaningful hardware limitations.

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? Claims were directed to the abstract idea of using marking to communicate information about a mail object, and routine steps failed to set them apart from conventional labeling or barcoding.

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? Claims were directed to the abstract ideas of collecting data and forming financial transactions in a particular field, and there was no inventive concept in generic “processor[s],” “interface[s],” “memory,” and “data.”

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? Claims required functional results of “converting,” “routing,” “controlling,” “monitoring,” and “accumulating records,” but did not describe how to achieve those results in a non-abstract way, and any potential inventive concept appeared in the specification, rather than in the claims.

✔ Step 1

Patent Eligible
Why? Claims not abstract because they recited specific steps to accomplish desired result, and there was no contention that patent only disclosed the result, rather than disclosing an inventive arrangement for accomplishing it.

✔ Step 1

Patent Eligible
Why? Disclosed invention improved the functioning of the electronic device, as well as the efficiency of using that device.

✔ Step 1
? Step 2

Undecided – Presented Factual Issue Not Appropriate for SJ
Why? Claims were directed to the abstract idea of parsing, comparing, storing, and editing data, but conventionality of technology required fact determination that could not be made at the summary judgment stage based on the evidence at record.

✔ Step 1

Patent Eligible
Why? Claims not abstract because they were directed to “a specific method of treatment for specific patients using a specific compound at specific doses to achieve a specific outcome.”

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? Voting, verifying the vote, and submitting it for tabulation are fundamental activities that have “form[ed] the basis of our democracy for hundreds of years,” and claims implemented these activities on generic computer components.

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? Claims were directed to abstract idea of displaying one set of data without interfering with another set of data, and their addition of conventional features, such as user customization, did not constitute an inventive concept.

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? Claims directed to abstract idea of using selected information to perform mathematical calculations and present their results; recitation of generic parallel processing components, even when used to perform an improved mathematical analysis, did not add an inventive concept.

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? Claims were directed to abstract idea of considering historical usage information while inputting data, and any non-abstract features were well-understood, routine, and conventional database structures and activities.

✔ Step 1

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

Roche Molecular Sys., Inc. v. Cepheid
(Oct. 9, 2018)

Methods for detecting the pathogenic bacterium Mycobacterium tuberculosis (“MTB”)

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? Claims are directed to a “naturally occurring phenomena” because they are directed to a relationship between certain nucleotides and the presence of MTB in a sample, i.e., “a phenomenon that exists in nature apart from any human action.”

Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC America, Inc.
(Nov. 16, 2018)

Methods of limiting a computer’s running of software not authorized for that computer to run

✔ Step 1

Patent Eligible
Why? Claims are directed to an improvement in computer functionality, namely, “a concrete assignment of specified functions among a computer’s components to improve computer security,” and address a technological problem (vulnerability of license-authorization software to hacking)

In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V.
(Dec. 28, 2018)

Method of playing a dice game

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? Claims are directed to the abstract idea of “rules for playing a dice game,” a type of method of organizing human activity, and recite conventional steps of “placing a wager, rolling the dice, and paying a payout amount if at least one wagered outcome occurs.”

Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collab Svcs, LLC
(Feb. 6, 2019)

Methods for diagnosing neurological disorders by detecting antibodies to a certain protein (muscle-specific tyrosine kinase (“MuSK”))

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? Claims are directed to a natural law because they relate to a correlation that exists in nature apart from any human action (the presence of naturally-occurring MuSK autoantibodies in bodily fluid and MuSK-related neurological diseases), and recite steps that only apply conventional techniques to detect that natural law.

Univ. of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. v. General Electric Co.
(Feb. 26, 2019)

Method for integrating physiologic treatment data

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? Claims are directed to the abstract idea of “collecting, analyzing, manipulating, and displaying data” using a computer and do not describe any specific improvement to computer functionality, and the patent proposes using “a general-purpose computer” to carry out the claimed steps.

Natural Alternatives Int’l, Inc. v. Creative Compounds, LLC
(Mar. 15, 2019)

Methods of treatment using beta-alanine, dietary supplements incorporating beta-alanine, and the use of beta-alanine to manufacture dietary supplements

✔ Step 1

Patent Eligible
Why? With respect to the method claims, they are “treatment claims” and therefore patent eligible because they are directed to new ways of using an existing product and “require that an infringer actually administer the dosage form claimed in the manner claimed, altering the athlete’s physiology to provide the described benefits.” With respect to the dietary supplement and manufacturing claims, neither is directed to a law of nature or a natural product, as the dietary supplement is based on “specific treatment formulations” and is not a product of nature (it can be used in a manner that beta-alanine as it appears in nature cannot).

SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.
(Mar. 20, 2019)

Method of hierarchical event monitoring and analysis within an enterprise network

✔ Step 1

Patent Eligible
Why? Claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they are “necessarily rooted in computer technology” and “solve a specific problem in the realm of computer networks,” namely, using multiple network monitors that analyze specific types of data on the network and integrate reports from the monitors, in order to identify hackers or potential network intruders.

Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
(Mar. 28, 2019)

Method of using oxymorphone to treat pain in patients with impaired kidney function

✔ Step 1

Patent Eligible
Why? Claims are patent eligible because they recite a method for treating a patient (carrying out a specific dosage regiment based on the results of kidney function testing) and are directed to an application of a natural relationship (between oxymorphone and patients with renal impairment).

Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc.
(June 25, 2019)

Method for acquiring and transferring data from a Bluetooth enabled data capture device to web services via a Bluetooth enabled mobile device

✔ Step 1
? Step 2

Undecided – District court erred by not accepting Cellspin’s well-pleaded allegations as true with respect to whether its patents capture, transfer, and publish data in a way that is plausibly inventive.
Why? The Court found that the claims are directed to an abstract idea under Step 1. But the Court held that the district court erred at Step 2, because accepting the allegations in the complaint as true (at the pleading stage), the claims “do significantly more than simply carry out an abstract idea” and are patent eligible.

Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc.
(July 30, 2019)

System and method for processing paper checks

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? Claims are directed to abstract idea of “crediting a merchant’s account as early as possible while electronically processing a check” and “simply instruct the practitioner to implement the idea with routine, conventional activity.”

SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.
(July 12, 2019)

Using network monitors to detect suspicious network activity, generating reports of the suspicious activity, and integrating the reports using hierarchical monitors

✔ Step 1

Patent Eligible
Why? Claims are directed to a “specific technique to solve a technological problem arising in computer networks,” namely, identifying hackers or potential network intruders by providing a “network defense system that monitors network traffic in real-time to automatically detect large-scale attacks.”

MyMail, Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC
(Aug. 16, 2019)

Methods of modifying toolbars that are displayed on internet-connected devices (e.g., PCs)

? Step 1
? Step 2

Undecided – Declined to determine in the first instance patent eligibility based on any proposed claim constructions.
Why? District court erred by not addressing the parties’ claim construction dispute before holding that the patents are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.

Genetic Veterinary Sciences, Inc. v. LABOKLIN GmbH & Co. KG
(Aug. 9, 2019)

In vitro methods for genotyping Labrador Retrievers, in order to discover whether the dog might be a genetic carrier of the disease HNPK

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? Claims are directed to “nothing more than ‘observing or identifying’ the natural phenomenon of a mutation in the SUV39H2 gene” and do not recite an inventive concept “that transforms the observation of a natural phenomenon into a patentable invention.”

The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co.
(Aug. 21, 2019)

Apparatus and method for communicating information about the status of a movable barrier (e.g., a garage door)

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? Claims are directed to the abstract idea of “wirelessly communicating status information about a system” and “are not limited to a specific implementation of a technological improvement to communication systems.”

American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC
(Oct. 3, 2019)

Method of manufacturing a driveline propeller shaft containing a liner designed such that its frequencies attenuate two modes of vibration simultaneously

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? Claims directed to the utilization of a law of nature, namely, Hooke’s law (and possibly others), without “any physical structure or steps for achieving the claimed result of damping two different types of vibrations.”

Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH et al.
(Nov. 15, 2019)

An improved check data generating device that enables a data transmission error detection system to detect a specific type of error that prior art systems could not

✔ Step 1

Patent Eligible
Why? Claims are directed to a “non-abstract improvement” in existing methods for error checking in data transmissions, by providing a “specific implementation of varying the way check data is generated” that improves the ability of prior art error detection systems to detect systematic errors.

Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp.
(Mar. 6, 2020)

Systems for comprehensive data management and processing that include, e.g., a remote Account Transaction Server (ATS) and local host Data Management System and Audio/Video Processor Recorder-player (VPR/DMS)

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? Under Step 1, the Court found that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of “using a computer to deliver targeted advertising to a user,” rather than “an improvement in the functioning of a computer.” At Step 2, the Court found that aside from the abstract idea, the claims recited “only generic computer components, including a programmable receiver unit, a storage device, a remote server and a processor.”

Illumina, Inc. et al. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. et al.
(Mar. 17, 2020)

Methods of preparing a fraction of cell-free DNA that is enriched in fetal DNA

✔ Step 1

Patent Eligible (at Step 1)
Why? Claims are directed to a patent-eligible method that utilizes a natural phenomenon: “the correlation between a DNA fragment’s size and its tendency to be either fetal or maternal.” Specifically, “the claimed method removes some maternal DNA from the mother’s blood to prepare a fraction of cell-free DNA that is enriched in fetal DNA.”

Bozeman Financial LLC v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta et al.
(April 10, 2020)

Methods for authorizing and clearing financial transactions to detect and prevent fraud

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? Under Step 1, the Court found that the claims are directed to “a fundamental business practice that, without more, is not eligible for patent protection”: verifying financial documents to reduce transactional fraud. At Step 2, the Court found that the claims failed to provide an inventive concept, as they required nothing more than “off-the-shelf, conventional computer, storage, network and display technology for collecting the data related to financial transactions, and displaying the data to the users.”

Ericsson Inc. et al. v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd. et al.
(April 14, 2020)

A system and method for controlling access to a platform for a mobile terminal for a wireless telecommunications system

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? Under Step 1, the Court found that the claims—despite being “written in technical jargon” —are directed to “the abstract idea of controlling access to, or limiting permission to, resources.” The Court similarly found at Step 2 that the claims did not recite any elements “sufficient to turn the claim[s] into anything more than a generic computer for performing the abstract idea of controlling access to resources.”

CardioNet, LLC et al. v. InfoBionic, Inc.
(April 17, 2020)

A device for detecting and reporting the presence of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter in a patient

✔ Step 1

Patent Eligible (at Step 1)
Why? The claims are directed to an improved cardiac monitoring device and not to an abstract idea. The Court specifically found that the claims “focus on a specific means or method that improves cardiac monitoring technology; they are not directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery.”

In re Rudy
(April 24, 2020)

A method for fishing

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? The claim is directed to “the abstract idea of selecting a fishing hook based on observed water conditions.” Proceeding to Step 2, the Court concluded that the claim failed to provide an inventive concept, as “the three elements of the claim (observing water clarity, measuring light transmittance, and selecting the color of the hook to be used) are each themselves abstract, being mental processes akin to data collection or analysis.”

Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. LG Electronics USA, Inc. et al.
(April 30, 2020)

A communication system comprising a primary station (e.g., a base station) and at least one secondary station (e.g., a computer mouse or keyboard)

✔ Step 1

Patent Eligible (at Step 1)
Why? The claims are directed to “a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, namely the reduction of latency experienced by parked secondary stations in communication systems.” The Court specifically found that the claimed invention “changes the normal operation of the communication system itself to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks” and “enables the communication system to accommodate additional devices, such as battery-operated secondary stations, without compromising performance.”

Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC
(May 14, 2020)

An automated notification system

✘ Step 1
✘ Step 2

NOT Patent Eligible
Why? Under Step 1, the claim is directed to “the abstract idea of providing advance notification of the pickup or delivery of a mobile thing.” Specifically, the Court noted that “business practices designed to advise customers of the status of delivery of their goods have existed at least for several decades, if not longer.” The Court further found that the claim fails at Step 2 because it “is specified at a high level of generality, is specified in functional terms, and merely invokes well-understood, routine, conventional components and activity to apply the abstract idea.”

Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc.
(July 14, 2020)

A packet monitor for examining packets passing through a connection point on a computer network

✔ Step 1

Patent Eligible
Why? The claims are directed to a challenge that is “unique to computer networks,” specifically, “identifying disjointed connection flows in a network environment.” The Court found that the claims solve a technological problem “by identifying and refining a conversational flow such that different connection flows can be associated with each other and ultimately with an underlying application or protocol.” In doing so, the Court noted that the claims and specification provide details of the underlying technical implementation for the claimed packet monitor.

XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, LC
(July 31, 2020)

An improved method of sorting particles using flow cytometry technology

✔ Step 1

Patent Eligible
Why? Claims are directed to an improved method of “operating a flow cytometry apparatus to classify and sort particles into at least two populations in real time … thereby facilitating classification and sorting of each individual particle.” The Court noted that the claims describe in detail a “step-by-step method” for accomplishing a physical process, including through the use of mathematical formulas to “improve classification and separation of individual particles.”

American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC
(July 31, 2020)

(1) Method of manufacturing a driveline propeller shaft containing a liner designed such that its frequencies attenuate two modes of vibration simultaneously

(2) Same as (1) with the additional step of “positioning”

(1)
✘ Step 1

(2)
? Step 1

(1)
NOT Patent Eligible
Why? Claims merely require the application of Hooke’s law (a law of nature) to tune a propeller shaft liner to dampen certain vibrations.

(2)
Undecided – Required District Court to Perform Fact Finding as to an Additional Claim Element
Why? Claims require the step of “positioning,” in addition to “tuning,” and as a result may be directed to more than just Hooke’s law.

Illumina, Inc. et al. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. et al.
(Aug. 3, 2020)

Methods of preparing a fraction of cell-free DNA that is enriched in fetal DNA

✔ Step 1

Patent Eligible
Why? Claims are directed to patent-eligible methods that utilize a natural phenomenon, in particular, “methods for preparing a fraction of cell-free DNA by the physical process of size discriminating and selectively removing DNA fragments longer than a specified human-engineered threshold.” The Court specifically noted that the claims are directed to “a human-engineered method rather than the natural size distributions of cell-free DNA.”