Securities Attorney for Going Public Transactions

Securities Lawyer Blog

knowledge itself is power

Federal Circuit Affirms Ineligibility of Background Check Patent Claims

In a recent precedential decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the Eastern District of Texas district court's ruling that the claims for a software system managing pre-employment background investigations are patent ineligible. The case, Miller Mendel, Inc. v. City of Anna, Texas, centers around U.S. Patent No. 10,043,188, titled "Background Investigation Management Service."

Case Background

Miller Mendel, Inc. (Mendel) sued the City of Anna, Texas, alleging that the City’s police department’s use of the Guardian Alliance Technologies (GAT) software platform infringed "at least Claims 1, 5, and 15" of their patent. The district court granted the City’s motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), deeming the claims ineligible under Section 101. Mendel’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and the court clarified that only claims 1, 5, and 15 were invalidated. The district court also denied the City’s motion for attorneys’ fees.

Key Arguments on Appeal

Mendel argued on appeal that the district court erred by relying on parts of the City's motion that were outside the pleadings, specifically a declaration not part of the pleadings. However, the CAFC noted that the district court did not rely on the declaration for its Section 101 analysis and that any error was harmless.

Patent Eligibility Analysis

The CAFC’s eligibility analysis focused on whether the invention was directed to an abstract idea. The court concluded that the claims were indeed directed to the abstract idea of performing a background check. Mendel’s argument that certain steps, such as transmitting hyperlinks via email, could not be performed in the mind or with pen and paper, did not persuade the court. The CAFC reiterated that the use of a computer alone does not transform an abstract idea into a patentable invention.

Alice Step Two: No Inventive Concept

Under Alice step two, the CAFC found no inventive concept in the claims. Mendel argued that there was no evidence to show that the specific steps were well-understood, routine, and conventional in the industry. However, the court pointed to the specification's description of the invention as automating common tasks in pre-employment background investigations as evidence that these tasks were routine before the invention date.

Cross-Appeal on Unasserted Claims and Attorneys’ Fees

The City cross-appealed, challenging the district court’s jurisdiction over claims other than 1, 5, and 15. The CAFC confirmed that the district court lacked jurisdiction over unasserted claims, as Mendel had narrowed the scope of claims at issue.

Regarding attorneys' fees, the City argued that the district court erred in its decision not to find the case exceptional and grant fees. The CAFC upheld the district court’s decision, noting that the absence of litigation misconduct and the belief in the patent's validity after USPTO examination were valid considerations.

Implications for Legal Practice

This decision underscores the critical importance of thorough patent eligibility analysis under Section 101, particularly in software-related inventions. It highlights the stringent application of the Alice framework and the necessity for patent claims to demonstrate more than just the use of a computer to perform an abstract idea.

For legal professionals:

  1. Careful Claim Drafting: Ensure that patent claims are drafted to clearly reflect an inventive concept that goes beyond mere automation of routine tasks.

  2. Comprehensive Due Diligence: When asserting patent claims, particularly in the software domain, conduct a rigorous analysis to anticipate and counter eligibility challenges under Section 101.

  3. Strategic Litigation: Be prepared to address potential reliance on extraneous materials in Rule 12(c) motions and ensure that arguments are tightly focused on the pleadings.

  4. Understanding Fee Awards: Recognize that the absence of litigation misconduct and a genuine belief in the patent's validity can be substantial factors against finding a case exceptional for the purpose of awarding attorneys' fees.

Conclusion

The CAFC's decision in Miller Mendel, Inc. v. City of Anna, Texas, provides valuable insights into the current judicial approach to patent eligibility, particularly for software patents. Legal professionals should take note of the detailed analysis and strategic considerations involved in such cases to better navigate the complexities of patent litigation and ensure robust protection of intellectual property rights.

Gayatri Gupta