{"id":1282,"date":"2016-10-11T17:08:59","date_gmt":"2016-10-11T21:08:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1282"},"modified":"2016-10-14T10:04:22","modified_gmt":"2016-10-14T14:04:22","slug":"system-and-method-claims-directed-to-abstract-idea-properly-bounced-on-12b6-motion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1282","title":{"rendered":"System and Method Claims Directed to Abstract Idea Properly Bounced on 12(b)(6) Motion"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Fairwarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc.<\/em>, [2015-1985] (October 11, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the complaint because U.S. Patent No. 8,578,500,\u00a0claimed patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C.\u00a0\u00a7 101.<\/p>\n

The patent related to\u00a0ways to detect fraud and misuse by identifying\u00a0unusual patterns in users\u2019 access of sensitive data. \u00a0 At step I of the Supreme Court’s two step framework for determining patent eligibility, the Federal Circuit found that the patent was directed to the abstract idea of\u00a0analyzing records of human activity to detect\u00a0suspicious behavior. \u00a0The Federal Circuit noted that\u00a0the \u201crealm of abstract ideas\u201d\u00a0includes \u201ccollecting information, including when limited\u00a0to particular content.\u201d \u00a0Furthermore,\u00a0analyzing
\ninformation by steps people go through in their minds,\u00a0or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially\u00a0mental processes within the abstract-idea category. \u00a0Finally,\u00a0\u201cmerely presenting the\u00a0results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing
\ninformation, without more (such as identifying a particular\u00a0tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part\u00a0of such collection and analysis.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit distinguished McRO<\/em> where it was the\u00a0incorporation\u00a0of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that\u00a0improved the existing technological process. \u00a0In contract, the Federal Circuit found the claims in suit to be more like those in Alice,\u00a0merely implement an old\u00a0practice in a new environment. \u00a0The “rules” in the patents in suit pose the same questions that humans in analogous situations
\ndetecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries. \u00a0The Federal Circuit also distinguished Enfish<\/em> where the claimed invention was \u201cdirected to a specific improvement to the way\u00a0computers operate.\u201d<\/p>\n

Because\u00a0it found the\u00a0claims were directed to an abstract\u00a0idea at step one of the patent-eligibility inquiry, the Federal Circuit\u00a0proceeded\u00a0to step two. \u00a0After scrutinizing the claim elements more microscopically\u00a0under step two, ithe Federal Circuit found nothing sufficient\u00a0to transform the nature of the claim into a patent eligible\u00a0application. \u00a0The claim limitations, analyzed alone and in combination,\u00a0fail to add \u201csomething more\u201d to \u201ctransform\u201d the claimed\u00a0abstract idea of collecting and analyzing information to
\ndetect misuse into \u201ca patent-eligible application.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit also found the system claim patent ineligible, noting that\u00a0while it is not always true that related\u00a0system claims are patent-ineligible because similar method
\nclaims are, when they exist in the same patent and are\u00a0shown to contain insignificant meaningful limitations, the\u00a0conclusion of ineligibility is inescapable.<\/p>\n

FairWarning tried to save the claims, arguing that they solved the problem of\u00a0compiling and combining disparate information sources, but the Federal Circuit that these features were not in the claims. \u00a0The Federal Circuit concluded:<\/p>\n

After closely examining the claims of the \u2019500 patent\u00a0in search of \u201csomething more\u201d to transform the \u00a0underlying<\/p>\n

abstract idea into a patent-eligible application, we conclude\u00a0that there is nothing claimed in the patent\u2014either\u00a0by considering the claim limitations individually or as an\u00a0ordered combination\u2014that makes its claims patent\u00a0eligible.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

FairWarning complained that the district court’s reliance on the finding that\u00a0\u201cthe human mind can perform each step\u201d was improper. \u00a0The Federal Circuit\u00a0dodged the issue, commenting that “the\u00a0inability for the human mind to perform each claim step
\ndoes not alone confer patentability.” \u00a0Likewise the Federal Circuit rejected FairWarning’s argument about preemption, noting that\u00a0while preemption may signal\u00a0patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete\u00a0preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Fairwarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc., [2015-1985] (October 11, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the complaint because U.S. Patent No. 8,578,500,\u00a0claimed patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C.\u00a0\u00a7 101. The patent related to\u00a0ways to … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1282","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-15"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1282","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1282"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1282\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1283,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1282\/revisions\/1283"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1282"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1282"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1282"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}