The Evolving

Protection of

Software Innovation

Raymond Van Dyke

May 2, 2015

Stranger in a Strange Land

• Agricultural Society• plows, crops

• Industrial Society• machines, devices

• paradigm shift: steam engine

• Knowledge-Based Society• organizational technique

• more abstract innovation

• software

• paradigm shift: Internet

• business methodologies

History of Software

1. Greeks and Romans

2. Middle Ages and Renaissance

3. Logarithms and Slide Rules

4. French Loom Works (1740s)

5. Joseph Jacquard (1800)

• Punch cards

History of Software (cont.)

6. Charles Babbage• Difference Engine (1822)

• Analytical Engine (1834)

7. Samuel F. B. Morse• Telegraph

8. Herman Hollerith

• Census (1890)

Defining characteristics of five first

operative digital computers

YesBy Function Table

ROMYesNo1948

YesPartially, by rewiringYesNo1944ENIAC

NoBy punched paper tapeNoNo1944Harvard Mark I/IBM

ASCC

NoPartially, by rewiringYesYesDecember 1943 / January

1944Colossus

NoNoYesYesSummer 1941Atanasoff-Berry Computer

Yes (1998)By punched film stockNoYesMay 1941Zuse Z3

Turing

completeProgrammable

Electroni

c

Binar

yShown workingComputer

History of Software (cont.)

9. Large Mainframes

10. Languages• FORTRAN (1957)

• COBOL (1959)

• BASIC (1966)

History of Software (cont.)

11. Cold War/Space Race

12. IBM 360 Operating System

13. Unbundling (1969)

History of Software (cont.)

14. Microprocessors

• Intel 4004 (1971), 8008 (1972), 8086 (1978)

• Pentium (1993), Pentium II (1997)

15. Communications

• TCP/IP protocols (1973-1981)

• Internet Service Providers

History of Software (cont.)16. Personal Computer

• MITS Altair 8800 (Dec. 1974)

• IBM PC (1981)

• MS-DOS (1981)

• Compaq (1982)

• Commodore 64 (1982)

• Apple Macintosh (1984)

• IBM PS/2 (1987)

History of Software (cont.)17. World Wide Web

• Tim Berners-Lee (1989)

18. Open Source

• LINUX (1991)

19. Gaming

• Doom (1993)

• Quake (1996)

• Xbox (2001)

History of Software (cont.)20. Internet Browsers

• Prodigy (1982)

• AOL (1983)

• Mosaic (1993)

• Netscape Navigator (1998)

21. Search Engines• Archie (1990)

• Gopher (1991)

• Lycos (1994)

• WebCrawler (1994)

• Internet Explorer (1995)

• Yahoo! (1995)

• AltaVista (1995)

• Google (1998)

35 U.S.C. § 101

“Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful

process, machine, manufacturer, or any new and

useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent

therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements

of this title.”

Non-Statutory Subject Matter

• Laws of Nature

• Natural phenomena

• Abstract ideas

• Concern against monopolizing scientific principles

The Supreme Court Shift

Gottschalk v. Benson

409 U.S. 63 (1972)• binary coded decimal to binary

• deemed mathematical algorithm, abstraction

• not patentable subject matter, preemptive to algorithm

• despite invitation to patent software, few filed patents

0 = 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0000 1 = 0 + 0 + 0 + 20. = 0001 2 = 0 + 0 + 21. + 0 = 0010

3 = 0 + 0 + 21. + 20. = 0011 4 = 0 + 22. + 0 + 0 = 0100 5 = 0 + 22. + 0 + 20. = 0101

6 = 0 + 22. + 21. + 0 = 0110 7 = 0 + 22. + 21. + 20. = 0111 8 = 23. + 0 + 0 + 0 = 1000

9 = 23. + 0 + 0 + 20. = 1001 10 = 23. + 0 + 21. + 0 = 1010

The Supreme Court Shift (cont.)

Parker v. Flook

437 U.S. 584 (1978)• method for computing alarm limit updates in a

catalytic conversion process

• deemed non-statutory because a mere number

• dubious decision, “point of novelty” approach

• negative impression on industry

The Supreme Court Shift (cont.)

Diamond v. Diehr

450 U.S. 175 (1981)• process for molding uncured rubber using equation

• calculation of cure time to open mold

• presence of equation in claim not preempt algorithm

• deemed patentable subject matter

• rejected point of novelty approach but not overrule it

Court of Customs and

Patent Appeals

Freeman-Walter-Abele Two-Step Test

In re Freeman

572 F.2d 1237 (CCPA 1978)

In re Walter

618 F.2d 758 (CCPA 1980)

In re Abele

684 F.2d 902 (CCPA 1982)

• Two pronged test

• First, is a mathematical algorithm employed in the claim?

• If so, second, is the claimed invention, as a whole, more than merely

the algorithm?

• If so, non-statutory subject matter claimed.

The Supreme Court Shift (cont.)

Diamond v. Chakrabarty

447 U.S. 303 (1980) (5-4 decision)• demonstrated shift to uphold patents

• biologically reengineered life forms patentable

• Jefferson quote, “ingenuity should receive a liberal

encouragement”

• legislative history of the 1952 Patent Act

• statutory subject matter includes “anything under the

sun that is made by man”

Federal Circuit

State Street Bank and Trust Company

v. Signature Financial Group, Inc.

149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998)• system to organize and manage a consolidated mutual fund

• combination of many smaller funds, pool

• reiterate anything under the sun made by man

• useful, concrete and tangible result

• ideas not patentable analysis, FWA test not useful

• no business method exception (ill-conceived)

• regular standards, §§ 102, 103, 112

PATENT REFORM AND

CONTROVERSIES1. Supreme Court eBay – Injunctions

Microsoft - extraterritoriality

MedImmune

Declaratory Judgment

Licensee Estoppel

KSR – Obviousness

Metabollite - §101

Bilski – §101 Redux

Prometheus – §101 Medical Diagnostics Test

Monsanto - §101 Self-Replicating Technology

Myriad - Breast Cancer gene patent

CLS v. Alice - §101 Code

Judicial Stances, New Justices Sotomayor and Kagan?

PATENT REFORM AND

CONTROVERSIES

Supreme Court Cases in 2014– Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 134 S.Ct. 843 (2014)

(burden of proof in DJ actions)

– Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1744

(2014) (level of review of atty fees award)

– Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc, 134 S.Ct. 1749 (2014)

(standard for atty fees award)

– Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments, 134 S.Ct. 2120 (2014) (claim definiteness)

– Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., 189 L.Ed 2d 52

(2014) (joint infringement)

– Alice Corp Pty Ltd v CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)

(subject matter patentability)

PATENT REFORM AND

CONTROVERSIES2.

3. Congress Various Patent Reform Bills

House Bill , then Senate 2003-2010

Senate Bill, then House 2011

Massive Coordinated Lobbying - AIA

Fast Passage of Act, Bismarck’s sausages

Change ongoing, 2013 HR 3309 Goodlatte Bill

Died in Senate, Harry Reid angered Leahy

Darrell Issa, new head of House IP Subcommittee

Senator Leahy still keen on patent reform

Controversial Still movement for legislation despite S.Ct and drop in litigation

Loser pays, English damages system

FTC Hearings, settlement with MPHJ, deceptive practices

Judicial Conference of U.S., changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, more specificity in patent complaints and change the rules on discovery

PATENT REFORM AND

CONTROVERSIES5. The America Invents Act of 2011

Enacted September 16, 2011, signed by President Obama, patent

reform was in his state of the Union Address

Effective Date of the Provisions Staggered

PTO Fees and Funding, Litigation Reforms, Immediate, September 16, 2011

PTO Proceedings, September 16, 2012

Substantive Changes, First-Inventor-To-File, March 16, 2013

AIA is now fully implemented

AIA Technical Corrections Act of 2013

Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012

Dual Track with all Pre-AIA cases – next 30 years

PATENT REFORM AND

CONTROVERSIES

Societal Swing or Power Brokers?

Many Large Corporations Hostile to Patents

– Like Henry Ford, Halliburton

Curtail Patent System

– Too Many Lawsuits, cf. Cost of Doing Business

PATENTS: COUNTERPOINT Assumption that Innovation is Good

socially beneficial

patents are a reward for contribution

Western capitalistic view (Calvinistic), Founders

Some Question Motive traditional cultural values (non-Westerners)

averse to capitalism

preservation of status quo

greater good over private incentive

uncompensated fame

scientist quest for knowledge

Jonas Salk as opposed to Thomas Edison

Cannot patent the sun, disingenuous comment

Moral high horse because patent unobtainable

PATENT LAW

Abraham Lincoln, Patent Attorney

Discoveries and Inventions SpeechJanuary 11, 1859

Lifelong Passion for Technology

[I]n the world’s history, certain inventions and discoveries occurred, of peculiar value, on account of their great efficiency in facilitating all other inventions and discoveries. Of these were the arts of writing and of printing, the discovery of America, and the introduction of Patent laws.

Guidelines

Avoid Abstractions

Claim Applications of Principles, Not Principles

But Future Technologies More Abstract

Challenge in Claim Drafting

Variety of Claims, Capture Infringement From Different Angles, Tangibility Preferred

THE FUTURE1. Information Age

2. Biotechnology Age

3. 21st Century

Nanotechnology

Personalized Medicine

3D Printing

Emergent Technologies

Convergent Technologies

Acceleration of Marvels

Raymond Van Dyke

Van Dyke Law

Washington Square

P.O. Box 65302

1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20035

(202)378.3903

vandyke@acm.org

ray@rayvandyke.com

2015 © Raymond Van Dyke