October 2014

Spotlight Info

In buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., No. 13-1575 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 3, 2014), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that the asserted claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.  On appeal, the Federal Circuit first considered whether the asserted claims fell into one of the exceptions to patent eligibility under § 101.  The Court explained that the excluded categories—laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas—may apply “even if the particular natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea at issue is narrow.”  Slip op. at 5 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1303 (2012)).  After setting forth the Supreme Court’s two-part test outlined in Mayo and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the Court determined that the asserted claims were “squarely about creating a contractual relationship—a ‘transaction performance guaranty’—that is beyond question of ancient lineage.”  Slip op. at 9 (citation omitted).  See this month’s edition of Last Month at the Federal Circuit for a full summary of this decision.