August 22, 2019
Authored and Edited by Amanda E. Stephenson; Kevin D. Rodkey; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., Nos. 2019-1345, -1460 (Fed. Cir. July 30, 2019), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s patent-eligibility finding and held Solutran’s U.S. Patent No. 8,311,945 not patent eligible under § 101.
The ’945 patent relates to processing paper checks by receiving electronic data captured by a merchant and crediting the merchant’s account. The district court denied defendant U.S. Bank’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity, finding persuasive a prior PTAB decision denying CBM review based on a determination that the ’945 patent was not directed towards an abstract idea. Alternatively, the district court concluded that the claims recited an inventive concept and passed the machine-or-transformation test. U.S. Bank and Elavon appealed.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed, agreeing with U.S. Bank that the ’945 patent’s claims are not patent eligible under § 101. In Alice step one, the court concluded that “the claims are directed to the abstract idea of crediting a merchant’s account as early as possible while electronically processing a check.” The court compared the claims to similarly ineligible claims in Content Extraction, finding that the use of physical checks does not preclude a finding of abstractness. In step two, the court found that the claimed steps were conventional and did not pass the machine-or-transformation test, as alleged by Solutran. Therefore, the Federal Circuit determined that the claims were not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under §101.
Copyright © 2019 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
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.