The Internet of Things Part I: Patent Prosecution Issues

Like any emerging technology, entrepreneurs and companies developing applications in the IoT space will seek patent protection for their inventions.  However, obtaining strong patent protection in the IoT space presents unique challenges.  For example, where do you focus protection?
Consider an example regarding the emerging technology of autonomous vehicles.  Such vehicles may rely heavily on IoT technologies, including vehicles equipped with IoT-enabled sensors capable of reporting on various variables such as vehicle position with respect to other vehicles and obstacles, environmental parameters which may be utilized to control aspects of vehicle controls, etc.  Furthermore, autonomous vehicles may utilize IoT-based information to assist in navigation, including IoT sensors located at strategic positions on a smart highway, in a smart city’s traffic-control architecture, etc.
The inherent difficulty in obtaining patent protection thus lies in that it is likely that there may be numerous players who own or produce the various components in such a scenario.  For example, if a company or individual has a patent covering relevant aspects of autonomous vehicle navigation, what are the options in case of infringement?  In such an example, it may be challenging to determine the infringing party.  In other words, such an example may lead to a case of divided infringement.
To avoid such issues of divided infringement, there is significant advantage to obtaining patent claims that a competitor can be shown to directly infringe.  One way of approaching this is to draft patent claims from the perspective of a single device in the IoT system.  For example, in the case of an autonomous vehicle, it may be advantageous to draft patent claims from the perspective of the vehicle powertrain control module.  The powertrain control module may include algorithms regarding a novel data-management control system or may comprise a module that receives data from various IoT devices, analyzes it, and provides instructions to various actuators to direct navigation of the autonomous vehicle, for example.  However, when drafting such claims, it is important to ensure that the claim idea comprises more than just an abstract idea, as will be discussed in greater detail below.
Structuring claims from the perspective of the vehicle control module may be advantageous in terms of avoiding cases of divided infringement, but it is important to keep in mind issues related to subject matter eligibility with regard to obtaining patent protection in the IoT space.  IoT-based patents are particularly challenging due to the fact that the vast majority of IoT inventions are rooted in computer technology.  In what is commonly known as the “Alice” case (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 234 (2014)), the court found that a computer-implemented method for mitigating settlement risk was patent-ineligible because it “add[ed] nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea.”  As a result, the USPTO and courts have increasingly used the Alice case to find computer-implemented inventions ineligible for patent protection, for failing to add “significantly more” to an abstract idea.
Clearly, such a decision by the court poses hurdles to obtaining IoT-related patents.  However, this does not preclude patenting IoT-based inventions, in particular with regard to autonomous vehicles.  Two recent Federal Circuit court cases illustrate examples of how computer-related inventions may be patentable.  In the first case, DDR Holdings LLC v. Hotels.com LP, the Federal Circuit found that patent claims to a system for generating composite webpages were not directed to an abstract idea because the claimed invention was “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” (773 F.3d 1245, Fed. Cir. 2014).  The second case (Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp. et al., No. 15-1244, slip op. at 12, Fed. Cir. 2016) established that patent claims directed to a relational logical model for a database were not abstract because “they are directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate, embodied in the self-referential table”.  Thus, a potential strategy to overcome rejections based on the Alice case is either to draft claims demonstrating that an IoT-based invention adds significantly more than just an abstract idea, or to draft claims demonstrating an IoT-based invention is rooted in computer technology, or directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate.
In Part II of this three-part series, we will discuss further strategies to obtaining patent protection in the IoT space, again using autonomous vehicles as an example.



Popular posts from this blog

Surprising Uses for Oobleck

Image
Oobleck is a common name for a non-Newtonian fluid comprising cornstarch and water. Named after a substance humorously described in Dr. Seuss’s classic children’s story, Bartholomew and the Ooblek, the cornstarch and water concoction is frequently used in children’s science classes as a fun way to learn about fluid mechanics. You may have fond memories, yourself, of playing with oobleck as a youth. Oobleck behaves as a fluid when touched gently, but becomes hard as a solid when hit with great velocity. For example, a person could run across a swimming pool of oobleck without getting their feet wet. However, if a person stood still on the oobleck, then they would slowly sink. Because oobleck is a children’s plaything and because of its simple recipe (cornstarch and water), one may be surprised to learn that inventors have attempted to patent serious industrial uses for the material. As an example, one current patent application, US 2015/0016885 (now abandoned), is for a system of fi...
Read more

Dispensing with the Formalities: Ex Parte Quayle Actions

Image
Checking my email after work one day, I was greeted with some unfortunate news: the application I was prosecuting had received yet another Office action.   Frustrated, I couldn’t resist skimming the substance of the rejection.   After all, like any patent practitioner, I thought my arguments were pretty irrefutable.   The news only got worse… or so it appeared.   The Office action was something called an “ Ex Parte Quayle action.”   Having never received one of these actions, I started mentally preparing myself to pull out the MPEP and research some arcane rejection. To my surprise, I didn’t find myself knee-deep in case law the following day.   Ex Parte Quayle actions, while somewhat inconvenient, are far from insurmountable.   In short, an Ex Parte Quayle action or “Quayle action” is issued when an application has objections remaining as to formal matters, but is otherwise allowable.   Accordingly, the mailing of these actions close...
Read more

Adaptive Headlight IP

Image
The recent Infrastructure bill signed into law by President Biden affects many things, but one aspect that affects the automotive world is adaptive headlights.  As noted by Jalopnik puts it somewhat crudely, this means “our headlights will suck way less” (link to https://jalopnik.com/finally-our-headlights-will-suck-way-less-1848067412 ). But with this sudden change, adaptive headlights in the US may be in for a particular messy IP situation since many companies may have considered it was not necessary to protect their adaptive headlight innovations in the US because of the 50-year old rule preventing such technology. Recent patents in the field from applicants such as Lumileds and Arex indicate that smaller players and startups may be able to break into the market which is expected to explode in the next few years once the final rules are implemented.  For those in the industry that have typically avoided US patent filings in the adaptive headlamp area, they may want to r...
Read more