January 21, 2021
Authored and Edited by Kayvon M. Ghayoumi; Sydney R. Kestle; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Simio, LLC, v. FlexSim Software Products, Inc., No. 2020-1171 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 29, 2020), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s (i) determination that the claims of the asserted patent were patent ineligible under § 101, and (ii) consequent dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim.
Simio sued FlexSim for allegedly infringing its patent for object-oriented simulations (e.g., people, vehicles, or machines). The patent’s asserted innovation is that it makes object-oriented simulation easier and more accessible by letting users build simulations with graphics instead of programming. FlexSim moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing it failed to state a claim for relief because the asserted claims are patent ineligible under § 101. In a “thoughtful opinion,” the district court concluded (i) the claims were merely directed to the “decades old computer practice of substituting text[-]based coding with graphical processing,” and (ii) Simio failed to show an inventive concept or “alteration of computer functionality” that was sufficient to transform its system into a patent eligible application.
The Federal Circuit affirmed on appeal. The Court first noted the invention’s purported improvement—"using graphical processes to simplify simulation building”—has been around since the 1980s. In the Court’s view, applying this known practice to the field of object-oriented simulations is no more than an abstract idea. The Court then rejected Simio’s argument that the claim “improves the functionality of prior simulation systems through the use of graphical or process modeling flowcharts with no programming code required.” In the Court’s view, this failed to “explain how the computer’s functionality is improved beyond the inherent improvement of the experience of a user who cannot (or maybe, would rather not) use programming.”
Copyright © 2021 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.