Reap What You Sow Industry Specific Applications of Data Processing Do Not Survive 101
Contributed by Knobbe Martens. Originally published on Patexia; republished here as part of the LexDana archive.
AGI SURETRACK LLC v. FARMERS EDGE INC.
Before Moore, Mayer, and Lourie. Appeal from the District of Nebraska.
Summary: Patents claiming data collection, processing, and transmission using generic computer components are patent-ineligible abstract ideas under § 101, even when narrowed to a specific industry or use.
AGI alleged Farmers Edge infringed five patents related “to automated systems and methods for capturing, processing and sharing farming data.” The district court granted summary judgment for Farmers Edge, holding the patents invalid under § 101 because the claims “use generic (‘off the shelf’) computers and sensors to collect data from standard farm implements” and were “directed to software that collects, processes, and shares data” without transforming the abstract idea into an inventive concept. AGI appealed, arguing its claims were patent-eligible as a “solution to the interoperability problem” between different farm equipment brands using an unconventional hardware and software system. The Federal Circuit disagreed.
At Alice step one, the court found the claims were directed to an abstract idea. The specification described the invention as simply a computer-implemented method for gathering and processing farm data, and the claims “invoke[d] the use of generic computer components to collect, analyze, and transmit farming data” without any specific improvement to computer functionality. At Alice step two, the court found that the claims did not disclose any specific inventive technology. The claims relied on generic computer components (microprocessor, bus connector, GPS receiver, memory storage area) used conventionally, and the improved speed inherent with applying an abstract idea using a computer was insufficient to establish an inventive concept. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that the asserted patents were not directed to eligible subject matter.
Editor: Sean Murray
More insights
The Prosecution Data Most IP Attorneys Never Look At
Most prosecution strategy is set before anyone looks at who is actually examining the application. What is sitting there unused Every examiner has a history: allowance rate, average number of office actions, how often an interview changes the outcome. None…
Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidation of Patent for Lack of Enablement of Claims Directed to a Method of Treating a Patient with a Unit Dosage in Wyeth Llc v Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals Lp
Written by : Eric Furman, Ph.D. and Ashley C. Morales Key Takeaway: Federal Circuit invalidates patent claims directed to a method for treating non-small cell lung cancer through administration of “a unit dosage” of an irreversible epidermal…
When About Becomes Indefinite Federal Circuit Provides Guidance for Life Science Patent Applications Regarding Limits of Approximation in Enviro Tech v Safe Foods
Written by : Jason J. Jardine and Kenneth O. Aruda, Ph.D. Key Takeaway: The term “about” remains useful in biotech and pharmaceutical claims, but only if the patent provides objective guidance about what the term means. Absent that guidance,…