Header graphic for print

WinTech

Legal Insight for Start-Up and Established Technology Businesses

Selling Your Company: The Letter of Intent

Posted in Technology Transactions

One of the first steps in the sale of your company will be entering into a Letter of Intent. In order to avoid drafting lengthy documents and spending time and money on attorneys unnecessarily, you should be certain that the primary terms of the sale are documented in a letter of intent. It is during the negotiation of the letter of intent that your company will have the most negotiating power. In addition, at this stage, it is critical to involve a tax consultant to be sure the transaction is structured in the most tax-efficient manner. Even though most of the terms of the letter of intent are non-binding, they will serve as a guide to the transaction and will be referred to often by the parties.

One of the binding terms in the letter of intent is likely to be a “deal protection provision,” which may be a “no shop,” a “window shop” or a “go shop.” These provisions protect an acquirer who, because it is spending substantial time and money evaluating and negotiating the acquisition, does not want the seller to seek a different purchaser following the signing of the letter of intent. The most common deal protection provision is a “no shop.” This provision precludes the selling company from talking to other prospective purchasers unless the board must do so in order to satisfy its fiduciary obligations to shareholders. A “go-shop” allows a selling company to seek a buyer at a higher price for a designated period of time after the letter of intent or purchase agreement is signed. This provision is useful when a buyer wants to enter into a letter of intent or purchase agreement quickly before the seller has had an adequate opportunity to seek the best price for the company. A “window shop” is not used as often as a “no shop” or a “go shop.” It allows a selling company to talk to prospective buyers that contact it but not to actively seek buyers.

Don’t Focus Solely on Price. Once you decide to sell your company, you have a fiduciary duty to your shareholders to get the best price possible and you may be subject to lawsuits from other shareholders who claim you could have gotten a higher price. However, the price stated by the buyer in the letter of intent may not be the price you actually receive for your company. It is important to assess how the purchase price will be paid. If it is to be paid in stock, the stock may not be transferable. Even if you acquire stock in a public company, you may not be able to sell the stock until you have met certain holding periods. By the time you are able to sell the stock, it may have declined in value. In addition, the purchase price may include an “earn-out” – a deferred payment based on a designated financial metric such as EBITDA or net income in future years. These are often the cause for disputes when the time comes to calculate the earn-out. They are also tricky because, once your company is sold, you lose control over how it is operated and the earn-out may be less than it would have been if you were in charge. Finally, a portion of the purchase price might be subject to a holdback or an escrow – an amount of money available to a purchaser if there is a breach in the representations and warranties or in the covenants. Thus, it is important to look at the stated components of the purchase price and assess how realistic it is that you will actually receive the full amount.

NEGOTIATING YOUR “SERIES A” FINANCING

Posted in Technology Transactions, Venture Capital, Private Equity and Other Financings

One of your first tasks in financing your technology company is likely to be completing your initial equity financing with outside investors. Typically, these financings are done with a venture capital firm (“VC”), angel investors or “friends and family” and the company will sell Series A Preferred Stock. Some of the primary negotiating points in the Series A Preferred Stock financing term sheet are the following:

     A. Valuation. This is a very difficult matter to ascertain, and, in truth, there is no way to determine a closely held company’s value with any precision. A company is well advised to seek non-legal assistance in determining its starting point for negotiation of valuation in order to be able to negotiate this point effectively.

     B. Dividends. The term sheet will typically provide that dividends will be paid on the Series A Preferred Stock “when, as and if” declared by the Board. In truth, dividends are rarely paid.

     C. Liquidation Preference. The term sheet will almost always provide that if the company is liquidated, after all the debts have been paid, the holders of the Series A Preferred Stock will get the amount that they invested back (together with accrued but unpaid dividends) before any payments are made to the holders of the Common Stock.

     D. Conversion Rights. In certain instances, the investors will want to convert their preferred stock to common stock (such as on a sale of the company). The Series A Preferred Stock is typically convertible initially on a 1:1 basis, subject to anti-dilution protection if the company later issues shares at a lower valuation.

     E. Registration Rights. The term sheet will almost always provide for “registration rights” – the right to participate in or demand registration of the shares with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

     F. Right of First Offer; Preemptive Rights. The term sheet often gives the investors the right to invest in the company’s future financings in preference to other investors the company may want to bring in as shareholders (a “Right of First Offer’). The investor will also want the right (called a “Preemptive Right”), if shares are issued in an investment, and the Right of First Offer is not exercised, to acquire the number of shares necessary to maintain its percentage ownership in the company, at the same price as the new investor is paying.

     G. Voting Rights of Series A Preferred. Typically, the Series A Preferred Stock will carry a number of votes equal to the number of shares of Common Stock issuable on conversion, and the Series A Preferred Stock and Common Stock will vote together as a class (except in certain instances described under “Protective Provisions”).

     H. Protective Provisions. There are certain instances in which the consent of the Series A Shareholders is required before the company may take a particular action, including a sale of all or substantially all of the company’s assets, an increase in the size of the board of directors, or a change in the terms of the company’s charter or bylaws. The investors will also want to approve increases in executive salaries, annual budgets, and other major matters relating to the business of the company.

     I. Rights Relating to the Founders. The term sheet will often require that the founders agree to have their shares vest over some period of time, and that the founders agree to sign non-competition agreements which will extend for one to two years following the term of their employment with the company.

     J. Anti-Dilution Protection. Investors will want protection if the company issues shares at a lower price per share than the investors are paying. These provisions are built into the rate at which the Preferred Stock is convertible into Common Stock.

     K. Board Seats. The investors will typically want at least one seat (often two seats) on the board of directors, and want to add at least one independent director to the board.

     L. Payment of Fees. The term sheet will require that the company pay the investor’s legal fees. The company should be able to negotiate a cap on this amount.

     M. No Shop. The term sheet will usually require that the company agree not to discuss alternative investments with any other investor for a period of about 30-60 days after the term sheet is signed.

Non-Competition Agreements

Posted in Technology Transactions

Take care when entering into non-competition agreements.

This post deals with non-competition agreements in Texas. These rules vary from state to state so if you are not in Texas, you should consult with an attorney in your state.

For many years, non-competition agreements have been notoriously difficult to enforce in Texas but Texas courts in recent years have taken steps to make it more likely that they will be enforced. By statute, the non-competition agreement has to be “ancillary to or part of” another enforceable agreement and it has to be reasonable as to time, the geographic area covered and the scope of activity that is limited.

For many years, the only “otherwise enforceable agreement” that courts held would satisfy the statute was an agreement at the inception of employment to immediately provide confidential information or training of a unique value. Recent Texas cases have provided a much broader view of an “otherwise enforceable agreement.” One case has held that the “otherwise enforceable agreement” can include a promise of confidential information as long as the confidential information is given at any time during the term of the agreement. Another case has held that the grant of stock options is an “otherwise enforceable agreement.” As a result of these cases, we recommend that companies get a non-competition agreement with their employees as part of a proprietary information agreement (discussed below) on the first day of employment and, if that is not possible, to grant some consideration at the time the employee is entering into the non-competition agreement. At the time of this writing, the only consideration that the courts have held is sufficient is stock options so it is not clear what other consideration might suffice.

Non-competition agreements must also be reasonable as to the territory covered in order to be enforceable. The territory where the employee worked will generally be deemed to be a reasonable territory. In the case of a software company that does business nationwide, the territory can be nationwide. In the case of a consulting company that does business only in one city, the territory should be limited to that city or that metropolitan area. An alternative way to define a “territory” is to limit the employee’s ability to do business with customers he or she did business with on behalf of the employer.

The non-competition agreement must also be reasonable as to time. Texas courts have held one-year restrictions to be reasonable as a matter of law and two-year restrictions are often enforced.

Finally, the non-competition agreement must be reasonable as to the activities that the employee is prohibited from engaging in. The restriction should be similar to the activities the employee performed for the company and may also include activities that would allow the employee to use the employer’s confidential information on behalf of his new employer.

Advisory Board Members

Posted in Technology Transactions

Often a young technology company will seek assistance from more experienced individuals, giving them the position of “Advisory Board Member” and giving equity to a person who agrees to serve in that capacity. This designation should not be taken lightly. There is no question that a young company can get tremendous benefit from having an Advisory Board, but it is important that the company and the Advisory Board Member have a contract setting out the rights and responsibilities of each. Matters that should be included are:

  • Meeting attendance or other expectations, such as a particular number of hours of consultation per month or per quarter.
  • Fees. In a start-up or other young company, this is typically equity and it should vest over the term of the agreement so that if, for some reason, the Advisory Board Member ceases to act in that capacity, he or she has not acquired 100% of the equity. Because there are tax consequences to issuing restricted stock, the Advisory Board Member often receives non-qualified stock options.
  • Reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses.
  • The term of the agreement. Usually, either party can terminate the agreement with or without cause at any time.
  • Ownership of any written materials, suggested product improvements or other intellectual property relating to your business.
  • Confidentiality provisions, including an obligation to return all confidential material on termination of the agreement.
  • Non-solicitation of employees.
  • Mutual non-disparagement.

 

A provision clarifying that the company and the Advisory Board Member are not partners and that the Advisory Board Member is not an employee.

Hiring Consultants

Posted in Technology Transactions

Technology companies receive services from a variety of individuals and often use consultants, either for marketing advice, for software development or for other discreet tasks. It’s important to be sure the consultants are properly classified as such (in which case, they are “independent contractors”) and that they should not be classified as employees. If you fail to make the correct classification and treat employees as independent contractors, your company could be liable for a wide variety of claims, including employee benefits, overtime pay, workers’ compensation insurance, back taxes, interest and penalties. Moreover, in some cases, this liability may extend to you personally and not just to your company.

The IRS and the Department of Labor have each developed a list of factors that play a part in determining whether a “consultant” is an independent contractor or an employee. Based on whether enough of these factors are present, a determination is made on a case-by-case basis. Some of the factors are:

  •  Independent contractors do not have to follow specific instructions about how to accomplish the task they are charged  with. They only have to deliver the result.
  •  Independent contractors don’t receive training from the company.
  •  Independent contractors may hire employees or subcontractors to complete the job.
  •  Independent contractors can set their own hours and perform their duties at any location; or, if the independent contractor works at the company’s office, he or she is not under the supervision and control of the company.
  •  Independent contractors typically engage in projects other than the one they are engaged in for your company.

Typically, a company would prefer to classify a worker as an independent contractor rather than an employee. There are a number of reasons for this, including:

  •  With an independent contractor, a company is not required to withhold income taxes, withhold and pay in Social Security and Medicare taxes, or pay unemployment tax for employees.
  •  Independent contractors are not entitled to “time and a half” for overtime as certain employees are.
  •  The company does not provide an independent contractor with any benefits, such as health insurance, vacation, etc.
  •  Independent contractors typically use their own facilities and equipment, making it less expensive for the company to complete a specific project.

There are also disadvantages to hiring someone as an independent contractor rather than as an employee, including the following:

  •  A company does not have control over the manner in which the work is performed – the independent contractor simply has to complete the designated project.
  •  Independent contractors are free to change their rates as they see fit on future projects or to decline to take on future projects.
  •  Independent contractors will not take on a variety of additional duties and many small companies need people who can “wear many hats.”
  •  Independent contractors do not have a “duty of loyalty” to the company, as an employee does. This duty impacts a person’s overall behavior vis-à-vis the company and its business and can be very important to the company’s success.

There is a significant risk to misclassifying employees as independent contractors. If the mistake is discovered, the company will be required to pay back taxes and interest and, in many cases, will also be required to pay penalties. Moreover, under certain circumstances, the executives of the company will be personally liable for these taxes, penalties and interest.

Structuring an Agreement Among Owners

Posted in Technology Transactions

When forming a new technology company, there are very few documents as important (and unfortunately, as overlooked) as a Shareholders’ Agreement. The discussion in this post is couched as an agreement among shareholders of a corporation but the same principles apply to members of a limited liability company and partners of a partnership.

The founders of a company rarely have differences of opinion, nor are the relationships among the shareholders acrimonious, at the beginning of a new venture; however, as time passes, divergence of opinions often arise and various events can (and do) occur that cause reasonable minds to differ. A Shareholders’ Agreement is an effective way to handle these situations.

Here are some (but not all) of the provisions that a Shareholders’ Agreement should include:

A. Right of First Refusal. Every Shareholders’ Agreement should contain a right of first refusal, in case one of the shareholders receives an offer from a third party to purchase his or her stock. If there are more than two shareholders, each non-selling shareholder usually may purchase his or her pro rata portion of the shares. The right of first refusal is an equitable way to permit a shareholder to cash out, but to protect the company and other shareholders from having unwanted shareholders.

B. Transfer Upon Death, Dissolution or Liquidation. In contrast to the voluntary transfer described above, involuntary transfers may be triggered by a shareholder’s death, divorce or bankruptcy. In each instance, a company may end up with undesirable shareholders. The Shareholders’ Agreement should give the company and the other shareholders the option to buy the shares on these occurrences.

C. Election of Directors/Voting Agreements. A Shareholders’ Agreement sometimes provides how many Board seats there will be and who has the right to be elected to these seats.

D. Preemptive Rights. “Preemptive rights” refers to the right of a shareholder to purchase enough shares to maintain his percentage ownership in the company if the company issues additional shares. A preemptive rights provision is also sometimes included in a Shareholders’ Agreement.

E. Purchase Upon Termination. If shareholders of the company are also employees, provisions giving the company the option to purchase their shares when their employment ends, either voluntarily or involuntarily, are important.

F. Proprietary Information/Non Competes. Shareholders’ agreements should require that all shareholders will maintain the company’s proprietary information in confidence. In addition, a Shareholders’ Agreement should include a provision that all intellectual property relating to the business of the company created by the founders, either before or after the creation of the company, will belong to the company. Finally, a shareholders’ agreement should prohibit the shareholders from competing with the company while they own an interest in the company and the shareholders should consider whether the non-compete should extend to some reasonable period of time, scope and geographic area after they no longer hold an interest in the company.

There are numerous other provisions that may be included in a Shareholders’ Agreement, including provisions relating to a company’s S-corporation status (if applicable), unanimous board/shareholders’ approval for certain events, co-sale rights, “tag along/drag along” provisions, and other corporate governance type provisions. The provisions of the Shareholders’ Agreement should be reviewed closely with your attorney.

 

Beware of IP Scams-Invention Development

Posted in Development & Commercialization of Technology, IP Counseling and Strategies, Technology News & Events, Technology Transactions

Information about patent and trademark applications, processes and maintenance requirements is much more accessible to the public than it used to be.  In particular, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has very good information available (www.uspto.gov).  Surprisingly, patent attorneys continue to find the same faulty understandings and confusion about the patent and trademark processes.   Not surprisingly, in view of the confusion, there are many scams focused on taking advantage of inventors.   The following advice has been derived from several initiatives the USPTO has directed to advising the public about common scams, in particular about invention development companies.

TOP TEN SCAM WARNING SIGNS

1.       Slick ads on radio, TV and magazines.  [These are the first “hooks”.]

2.       Refusal to respond to your questions in writing signed by a company official. [Legitimate companies will provide the answers in writing.]

3.       Salespersons want money right away …up-front.

4.       You are told to describe your idea in writing, mail it to yourself and don’t open the envelope. [This is worthless advice.]

5.       You are promised a patent search but no patentability opinion by a patent attorney/agent. [This should be provided to you.]

6.       You are guaranteed to get a patent or your money back. [No one can guarantee issuance of a useful patent.]

7.       You are advised to apply for a design patent. [This type of patent has limited applicability to many inventions.]

8.       You can’t reach salespeople of company officials without leaving many messages [Maybe there is no real office location or company.]

9.       You are told that your idea is a “sure-fire” hit! [Probably every client of this company is told that. Be skeptical.]

10.     Refusal to provide client references or copies of forms and agreements for your review. [Get at least five names to contact and show the forms to an attorney before signing.]

          The prevalence of scams and fraudulent invention disclosure firms has been such a problem that the federal government has formally addressed it.  The FTC has investigated, fined, and permanently enjoined some companies and individuals from the business of “invention development.  The USPTO advises inventors to always check the reputation of invention promoters/promotions firms before making any commitments, and to remember that not all invention promoters/promotion firms are legitimate. Inventors thinking about using one of these firms should ask for references from their current clients and check the firm’s reputation by:

  • Looking for complaints listed on the FTC or USPTO web site
  • Consulting the Better Business Bureau
  • Consulting the Chambers of Commerce in your area

While the USPTO does not investigate complaints or participate in any legal proceedings against invention promoters/promotion firms, under the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999, the USPTO does provide a public forum for the publication of complaints concerning invention promoters/promotion firms. Also, in the forum, the USPTO publishes responses to the complaints from the invention promoters/promotion firms.

The USPTO accepts complaints filed against invention promoters/promotion firms and forwards these complaints to the invention promoters/promotion firms for response. Both the complaints and the responses are published in the public forum so that they are publicly available. The USPTO does not accept complaints submitted under this system if the complainant requests confidentiality.

Additional information can be found at the following links

THE MIS-“CONCEPTION” OF BEING AN INVENTOR

Posted in Patent Counseling & Strategies

Scientists often confuse “authorship” in a manuscript with “inventorship” in a patent application or a patent.  More often than not, scientists will list everyone involved with an invention or a manuscript describing the invention, as inventors while filing a patent application.  These include individual(s) involved in determining whether the invention works, writing the analysis, or supervisors.  However, inventorship in a patent bestows exclusive property rights to patent holders as reward for innovation and therefore, there are strict legal requirements for who qualifies as an inventor for a patent.   Incorrect inventorship on a patent can jeopardize the validity of the patent.  On the point of inventorship, in the case of Pitts v. Hall (2 Blatchf., 229), Judge Nelson said:

“A person, to be entitled to the character of an inventor, within the meaning of the Act of Congress, must himself have conceived the idea embodied in his improvement.  It must be the product of his own mind and genius, and not of another’s.”

Conception is more or less the “touchstone of inventorship.” A person is deemed to be an inventor of the subject matter of a claimed invention if he conceives of it.  Conception is defined as “the complete performance of mental part of the inventive act….” Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 359 (Fed. Cir. 1985).  Where the original conception is complete, a practitioner is able to reduce the invention to practice with nothing more than routine skill.  In such a scenario, the contributor to the conception of the claimed invention, and not the practitioner, who reduces the invention to practice, is an inventor.  Under these criteria, not all authors of a manuscript describing the invention may qualify as inventors on a patent application or a patent. In today’s collaborative environment, where teams of people work to produce a “joint invention”, these rights and restrictions take on new significance.

From time to time, inventorship on a patent application may have to be reviewed because of changed circumstances.  For example, if during prosecution of a patent application, the claims containing an inventor’s contribution are cancelled, then the listed inventor may no longer be an inventor on the patent application.  Inventorship errors are more difficult to correct in issued patents than in pending applications and require the cooperation and consent of all inventors and assignees.  Thus errors involving inventorship should be addressed as early as possible.  The AIA has streamlined the process for correcting inventorship and made it much easier to correct such errors.  Specifically, AIA removes the requirement of proving an absence of deceptive intent for correcting inventorship.  Additionally, the consent of an assignee is no longer needed.  However, an intentional failure to name inventor(s) by anyone associated with patent prosecution, including the named inventors, may result in a finding of unenforceability due to inequitable conduct against the named inventor(s).

An omitted inventor also has several options for correcting inventorship.  The omitted inventor can choose to file a written third party protest against the other inventors’ application alleging fraud or incorrect inventorship or file their own application to provoke an interference proceeding.  Finally, the unnamed inventor can also choose to file an action in district court to correct inventorship.  However, a presumption of laches applies to any action brought after 6 years from the date that the patent issued.

1. 35 U.S.C. § 116

2. 35 U.S.C. § 256

3. 35 U.S.C. § 262

4. 37 C.F.R. §  1.48 (a) – (f)

5. 37 C.F.R. § 1.291

6. Fina Oil v. Ewen, 123 F.3d 1466, 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

7. Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 359 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

8. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Lab., 40 F.3d 1223, 1229 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

9. Perspetive Biosystems, Inc. v. Pharmacia Biotech, Inc., 225 F.3d 1315, 56 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

10. Frank’s Casing Crew and Rental Tools v. Pmr Techs., 292 F.3d 1363, 63 U.S.P.Q.2d 1065 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

Patent Definiteness Requirement Update

Posted in Definiteness/Indefiniteness, Intellectual Property Litigation

The Supreme Court recently “conclude[d] that the Federal Circuit’s formulation, which tolerates some ambiguous claims but not others, does not satisfy the statute’s definiteness requirement.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., No. 13-369 (2014). Instead, the Court concluded that “a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.”  Id, at 1.

Under 35 U. S. C. §112, ¶2, the Patent Act requires that a patent specification “conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as [the] invention.” Prior to Nautilus the Federal Circuit has stated that “a patent claim passes the §112, ¶2 threshold so long as the claim is ‘amenable to construction,’ and the claim, as construed, is not ‘insolubly ambiguous.'” Nautilus, Inc., at 1. However, it was noted Nautilus that it “cannot be sufficient that a court can ascribe some meaning to a patent’s claims; the definiteness inquiry trains on the understanding of a skilled artisan at the time of the patent application, not that of a court viewing matters post hoc. To tolerate imprecision just short of that rendering a claim “insolubly ambiguous” would diminish the definiteness requirement’s public-notice function and foster the innovation-discouraging ‘zone of uncertainty’…”  Id, at 12.

In reaching its conclusion that “a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention,” the Court noted:

First, definiteness is to be evaluated from the perspective of someone skilled in the relevant art.

Second, in assessing definiteness, claims are to be read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history.

Third, “[d]efiniteness is measured from the viewpoint of a person skilled in [the] art at the time the patent was filed.”

Id, at 8-9.

 

Alice in Wonderland: The Ongoing Impact of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l on Computer-Implemented Inventions

Posted in Biotechnology, Development & Commercialization of Technology, Nanotechnology, Patent Counseling & Strategies

On June 19, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (Alice)[i].  In Alice, the Court held that several patents that pertained to a computerized platform for eliminating risk in conducting financial transactions between two parties were ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. §101[ii].  The Court reasoned that the patents were merely drawn to an abstract idea of intermediated settlement that utilized a “generic computer implementation.”

In response to the decision, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued preliminary examination instructions to patent examiners for determining the patent eligibility of computer-implemented inventions involving abstract ideas (Guidelines)[iii].  The Guidelines indicated that patent examiners can utilize a two-part analysis for evaluating the patent eligibility of abstract ideas.  First, examiners must “determine whether the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.”  Second, if an abstract idea is present, the examiners must determine whether the claimed invention is sufficient to ensure that it amounts to “significantly more than the abstract idea itself.”[iv]

Since the issuance of Alice and the Guidelines, the USPTO and the lower courts have challenged numerous computer-implemented inventions.  For instance, the USPTO has withdrawn the notice of allowances for several patent applications that were deemed to be patent ineligible in view of Alice.  Likewise, several lower court decisions have relied on Alice to invalidate computer-implemented patents.  Some examples of these court decisions are summarized below:

  • Digitech Image Technologies v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2013-1600-1618 (U.S. Fed. Cir., July 11, 2014). A patent that utilized a computerized system to ensure that images displayed consistently on different kinds of devices (e.g., computer screens and printers) was held to be invalid because the computer-implemented processes were allegedly abstract ideas that could have been performed by human beings.
  • Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS, LLC, C.A. No. 2013-1663 (U.S. Fed. Cir., August 26, 2014).   Patents relating to the implementation of a bingo game on a computer were held to be invalid because the processes were allegedly directed to abstract ideas (i.e., mental steps) that could have been performed by human beings through the use of “pen and paper.”
  • Buysafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., C.A. No. 2013-1575 (U.S. Fed. Cir., September 3, 2014).  A patent directed to methods and machine-readable media encoded to perform steps for guaranteeing a party’s performance of its online transaction was held to be invalid because the methods and media were allegedly directed to an abstract idea.
  • Dietgoal Innovations, LLC v. Bravo Media LLC, C.A. No. 13 Civ-08391-PAE (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D.N.Y, July 8, 2014).  A patent relating to the use of a computer to plan meals and achieve diet goals was held to be invalid because the process was directed to an abstract idea that could have been performed by human beings.
  • Comcast IP Holdings, LLC v. Sprint Communications Company L.P., et al., C.A. No. 12-205-RGA (U.S. Dist. Ct., Del., July 16, 2014).  A patent relating to a computerized telecommunications system that checked with a user before deciding whether or not to establish a new connection was held to be invalid because the process was allegedly directed to an abstract idea that could have been performed by human beings.
  • CMG Financial Services, Inc. v. Pacific Trust Bank, F.S.B., C.A. No. CV-11-10344 PSGA (U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D.CA., August 29, 2014).   A patent on a method of paying down a mortgage early when funds are available and then borrowing funds as needed to reduce the overall interest charged by the mortgage was held to be invalid  because the process was allegedly directed to an abstract idea.
  • Loyalty Conversion Systems v. American Airlines, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 2:13-CV-655 (U.S. Dist. Ct., E.D.TX., September 3, 2014). Patents on computer-implemented systems for converting reward points from one store to another store was held to be invalid because the process was allegedly directed to an abstract idea without any significant additions.
  • Walker Digital, LLC v. Google, Inc., C.A. No. 11-318-LPS (U.S. Dist. Ct., Del., September 3, 2014).  Patents directed to systems and methods for controlling the release of confidential or sensitive information in anonymous communications was held to be invalid because the systems and processes were allegedly directed to abstract ideas.
  • Tuxis Tech v. Amazon, C.A. No. 13-1771-RGA (U.S. Dist. Ct., Del., September 3, 2014).  A patent directed to a computerized process for individualizing up-selling based on the identities of the purchaser and the product to be purchased was held to be invalid because the process was allegedly directed to an abstract idea.
  • Eclipse IP, LLC v. McKinley Equipment Corporation, C.A. No. CV-14-154-GW(AJWx) (U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D.CA., September 4, 2014).  Patents directed to computer-implemented systems for asking people to perform tasks and monitoring the performance of those tasks were held to be invalid because the systems were allegedly directed to abstract ideas.
  • Every Penny Counts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., C.A. No. 8:11-CV-2826-T-23TBM (U.S. Dist. Ct., M.D.FL., September 11, 2014).  Patents directed to methods and systems for automated saving or automated charitable giving were held to be invalid because they were allegedly directed to abstract ideas.
  • McRO (Planet Blue) v. Activision Blizzard, et al., C.A. No. CV-14-336-GW(FFMx), (U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. CA., September 22, 2014).  Patents directed to computer-implemented methods of automatically animating lip synchronization and facial expression of animated characters were held to be invalid because they were allegedly directed to abstract ideas.
  •  Open Text v. Alfresco Software, C.A. No. 13-CV-04843-JD (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. CA, Sept. 19, 2014).  A patent directed to a computer readable storage medium for facilitating a network based dialogue with customers was held to be invalid because it was allegedly directed to an abstract idea.

The aforementioned developments could make it easier to challenge inventions directed to software, computer implementations, and business methods.  However, it is doubtful that all software, computer-implemented and business method inventions will be affected by Alice.  For instance, software inventions that improve the functioning of a computer may still be eligible for patent protection.  Likewise, software inventions that improve other technical fields may also be eligible for patent protection.  Nonetheless, the full effect of Alice remains to be determined.


[i] Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ___, No. 13-298 (June 19, 2014).

[ii] 35 U.S.C. §101 states that, “[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”  Judicial exceptions to what constitutes patent eligible subject matter have included “abstract ideas,” “laws of nature,” and “natural phenomena.”

 [iii] June 25, 2014 Memorandum issued by Andrew H. Hirshfeid, Deputy Commissioner For Patent Examination Policy, to the Patent Examining Corps, entitled “Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Ply. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Illternational, et al.”  http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/alice_pec_25jun2014.pdf

 [iv] A prior WinTech blog post provides a summary of Alice and the Guidelines.  See: http://www.wintechblog.com/2014/07/are-computer-implemented-inventions-patent-eligible-go-ask-alice/