Last week, the Federal Circuit upheld the dismissal of a software patent infringement case against Google. The district court dismissed the case based on Google’s defense that the Plaintiff’s patent was directed to patent-ineligible subject matter—a common claim rejection for software patents. In so doing, the district court applied the Alice-Mayo framework previously discussed on the IP Blog, the test all U.S. courts and the Patent and Trademark office use to determine whether patent claims are impermissibly abstract.
The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the Plaintiff’s software patent claims, directed to asynchronous web conferencing, are unenforceable because “they do not explain how the client applications achieve the recited manipulation” (emphasis added) to arrive at the outcome. The claims therefore rely on “results-oriented generality” and “amount to a mere implementation of an abstract idea.” The Plaintiff’s claim and appeal failed, with Google winning costs. The Plaintiff’s loss illustrates the care inventors must take to include the “how” of their inventions in each patent application, especially as inventions are increasingly based in software.
