CALL US: 206.533.3854
CALL US  206.533.3854
AEON Law logo full color transparent
By Alexandre Dulaunoy from Les Bulles, Chiny, Belgium - Everybody needs a hacker, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=49393028

Federal Circuit Finds Method Non-Abstract

Federal Circuit
Finds security method
Isn’t really abstract

The Federal Circuit has found that a claimed method for improving computer security was a non-abstract computer-functionality improvement because it used a specific technique that was different from earlier approaches and reduced the risk of hacking.

The case,  Ancora Techs. v. HTC Am., Inc., involved Ancora’s ‘941 patent for a “Method of Restricting Software Operation Within a License Limitation.”

The patent claims methods for limiting a computer’s ability to run software not authorized for that computer.

Ancora sued HTC for alleged infringement of its patent.

HTC moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that the patent’s claims were invalid because their subject matter was ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C § 101.

HTC argued that the method was only “an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.”

As the court noted, the patent stated that “[n]umerous methods have been devised for the identifying and restricting of an unauthorized software program’s operation.”

For example, said the court,

software-based methods exist that require writing a license signature on the computer’s hard drive, but a flaw in those methods is that such a signature can be changed by hackers without damaging other aspects of computer functionality.  Hardware-based methods exist that require inserting a dongle into a computer port to authenticate the software authorization, but those methods are costly, inconvenient, and not suitable for software sold and downloaded over the internet.

The patent at issue described

an asserted improvement based on assigning certain functions to particular computer components and having them interact in specified ways. The proposed method “relies on the use of a key and of a record.”  A “key,” which is “a unique identification code” for the computer, is embedded in the read-only memory (ROM) of the computer’s Basic Input Output System (BIOS) module: the key “cannot be removed or modified.”

The court concluded that

claim 1 of the ‘941 patent is not directed to an abstract idea. Improving security—here, against a computer’s unauthorized use of a program—can be a non-abstract computer-functionality improvement if done by a specific technique that departs from earlier approaches to solve a specific computer problem.

Related Articles

Supreme Court: No Time Limit on Monetary Recovery in Copyright Cases

The US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Sherman Nealy, a record producer who sued Warner Music for copyright infringement over a 2008 song by ...
Read More

Patent Office Requests Public Comment on AI Prior Art

The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has published a request for comment (RFC) on “how AI could affect evaluations of how the level of ordinary skills ...
Read More

FTC Bans Employee Non-Compete Agreements

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has voted to approve a proposed rule that would ban employers from using non-compete agreements with nearly all employees. The ...
Read More

Let's work together.

Contact us to set up a meeting with an attorney or team member.

Stay Informed

Sign up to receive Patent Poetry—a monthly roundup of key IP issues in our signature haiku format. Four articles (only 68 syllables); zero hassle.

SECTORS

HIGH
TECHNOLOGY

Artificial Intelligence

Blockchain & Cryptocurrency

Computer Technology & Software

Consumer Electronics

Electrical Devices

MECHANICAL
& PRODUCTS​

Cleantech

Mechanical Devices

Consumer & Retail Products

Hardware & Tools

Toys & Games

LIFE SCIENCES
& CHEMISTRY​

Biotechnology

Chemical Compounds

Digital Health

Healthcare Products

Pharmaceuticals

BRANDING
& CREATIVE​

Books & Publications

Brand Creation

Luxury Products

Photography & Video

Product Design

SERVICES

PROTECT

DEAL

DEFEND