Bereskin & Parr LLP
Subscribe Twitter Linked-in RSS
  • About Us
  • Our People






  • Services
  • News & Publications
  • Events
  • Offices
  • Students
  • Careers

News & Publications

FIND AN ARTICLE

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Keep informed about the latest news
and updates from Bereskin & Parr



 

MEDIA CONTACT
Evelyn Dempsey 
Manager, Business Development & Marketing
416.957.1182

 

 Bookmark this page  Print this page
BER-U-S-Patent-Office-Seeks-to-Better-Define-Boundaries-of-Abstract-Ideas

U.S. Patent Office Seeks to Better Define Boundaries of “Abstract Ideas”

December 20, 2016

Author: Paul Horbal

In September of this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a notable decision regarding patentable subject matter. The decision, in McRO Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America (McRO), signals a possible shift in the way courts evaluate the types of inventions that can be patented. New developments appear to reinforce this view and suggest that both the courts and the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) will increasingly think twice before determining that inventions are unpatentable “abstract ideas.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (134 S.Ct. 2347) continues to set the standard for patent eligible subject matter with its infamous two-part test. The Alice test first examines whether a patent claim contains an exception from patentability and, if the answer is affirmative, asks whether there are additional elements in the claim that amount to “significantly more.” One well known exception is where the claims are directed to an “abstract idea,” although the Court famously declined to provide a definition.

McRO attempted to provide a partial definition, noting that “courts ‘must be careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims’ and that it is important to look at the claims as a whole and without ignoring individual elements. In particular, the CAFC asked whether the patent claims at issue would pre-empt all methods of carrying out the alleged abstract idea (in that case, animating computer-generated characters), or rather simply a “genus” of approaches that can be employed using a particular technology.

As our previous article noted, the concept of pre-emption was mentioned as a motivating factor in the Supreme Court’s Alice decision, but lower courts generally had been reluctant to conclude their analysis in this manner, at the first step of the Alice test. Since McRO, there have been more decisions that based a finding of patentability on a lack of pre-emption, along with some that found a lack of pre-emption insufficient – on its own – to impart patent eligibility. This has prompted the USPTO to issue a Memo to its Patent Examining Corps.

The Memo stops short of instructing patent examiners to consider pre-emption as a primary factor in their analyses. But examiners are instructed to consider some of the points raised in the McRO decision that weigh in favour of finding patentable subject matter: a teaching in the specification about how the claimed invention improves a computer or other technology; a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome defined by the claimed invention, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome; and whether the claim elements, even if individually known, are arranged in some non-conventional way. These were some of the key takeaways for patent applicants from the McRO decision.

Prospective patentees – particularly those working in areas like FinTech with its emphasis on software-based inventions – have reason to be buoyed by these developments. Patent specifications should continue to be carefully prepared with these developments in mind and explain how a patentee’s invention improves technology and thereby supports a finding in favour of patentable subject matter. This approach is a wise one to follow in the U.S., Canada and elsewhere.

Information on this website is for information only. It is not, and should not be taken as, legal advice. You should not rely on, or take or not take any action, based upon this information. Professional legal advice should be promptly obtained. Bereskin & Parr LLP professionals will be pleased to advise you.

 

About Us

Overview
People Clients Diversity and Inclusion

Accolades
Archives

Offices

Hours of Operation

Our People

All

Refine search by
Type Office Practice School

Services

Patents
Automotive Chemical Cleantech Electrical & Computer Technology Financial Technology Life Sciences Mechanical & Industrial Processes Medical Devices Nanotechnology Oil & Gas Plant Breeders’ Rights

Industrial Designs

Trademarks

Litigation

IP Management & Strategic Counselling

Licensing & Transactions

Regulatory, Advertising & Marketing

Copyright & Digital Media

News & Publications

Newsroom
Archive

Articles
Article Archives

Newsletters

Media & Press

Litigation Cases
Patent Trademark Copyright

Subscribe

Webinars

Students

Overview

Articling Program

Summer Program

Recruitment
Articling Recruitment Second Year Recruitment First Year Recruitment Career Fairs

B&P Your University

Current Students

University Prizes

How to Apply

Events

Events Calendar

Student Events Calendar

Offices

Careers

Support Staff

Professionals

Students

Languages

English

Français

中国语

日本語

Search