June 16, 2016
Authored and Edited by Christopher C. Johns; Matthew J. Hlinka; Kenie Ho; Adriana L. Burgy
The Internet of Things, or IoT, is the latest development in our society’s evolution into a futuristic utopia. At its most basic level, the IoT consists of three elements:
IoT potentially affects nearly every detail of our lives, from connecting utility meters for real-time nation-wide analytics of water and energy usage, to deploying connected microphones city-wide to help police listen for gun shots and identify where the firing gun might be located. Anything with an on/off switch is a potential IoT device.
With the dawn of this new technological frontier, one would expect a surge in IoT patents. That is true for many hardware-based technologies, but recent developments in U.S. law have made patenting difficult for software-related IoT innovations.
The patent eligibility threshold is one of the biggest challenges for the IoT. By statute, a patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” Courts, however, struggle applying this rule to software-related technologies. In June 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a landmark case, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, and set forth a two-step test for determining patent eligibility:
Can you still get a software-related IoT patent under Alice? Yes, but patent applicants may need to focus patents on narrower areas of protection. Patents that are too broad may be invalidated as “too abstract.”
One approach is to specify the use of particular hardware or tangible elements. By limiting claim coverage to a particular set of devices and a particular environment, even a software-related invention can be patent eligible.
Another approach is to provide specific operations, e.g., detailed algorithms. Trying to broadly patent straightforward steps in a software algorithm runs the risk of invalidating any issued patent, but by specifying, for example, the particular—and perhaps novel—steps, a patent is more likely to meet the Alice test.
Copyright © 2016 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
Conference
Best Practices in Intellectual Property– A Decade of Dedication to IP Excellence
April 8-9, 2024
Tel Aviv
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
Winning the Battle but Not the War: Disclaimer Requirement Overturned, Section 2(d) Objection Upheld
March 28, 2024
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
The Federal Circuit’s Heartfelt Affirmation of Everybody’s Right to Use “Everybody vs. Racism”
March 22, 2024
Conference
2nd Annual Forum on IP, Funding and Tech Strategies for Novel Therapeutic Modalities
March 20, 2024
Boston
Ad Law Buzz Blog
“Banning” a Banned Ingredients Claim: NAD’s Application (and Expansion) of the FTC’s Green Guides
March 18, 2024
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.