Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Htc America, Inc.
908 F.3d 1343
Fed. Cir.2018Background
- Ancora owns U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941, claiming a method to restrict unauthorized software by storing an encrypted license record in an erasable, non-volatile portion of the computer BIOS and verifying programs by comparing encrypted records in BIOS and volatile memory.
- The patent asserts this BIOS-based storage is harder to tamper with than prior-art software-storage locations, improving security without extra hardware (e.g., dongles).
- Ancora sued HTC in 2016 for infringement; HTC moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) arguing the claims are patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as an abstract idea.
- The PTAB denied HTC’s petition for covered-business-method review, finding the claims claim a technological invention.
- The district court dismissed, applying Alice step one and concluding the claims were directed to the abstract idea of selecting, verifying, and acting on a program and that using BIOS to store verification was merely storing data. Ancora appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claim 1 of the ’941 patent is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Alice framework) | Ancora: the claims recite a specific technical improvement—storing/encrypting license records in an erasable BIOS region and interacting with volatile memory—to reduce hacking risk, not an abstract idea | HTC: the claims are an abstract process (select/verify/act) and using BIOS to store the verification structure is no more than storing data in a computer component | Court: Reversed. Claim 1 is directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality (a technical solution using BIOS characteristics) and thus is not an abstract idea under Alice step one, so § 101 invalidity was not shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (software claims focused on a specific improvement to computer operation are not directed to an abstract idea)
- Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) (two-step framework for determining patent-eligibility under § 101)
- Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (behavior-based security improvements can be non-abstract computer-functionality improvements)
- Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claims directed to an improved computer memory system are not abstract)
- Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (claims to a specific UI structure solving spreadsheet navigation problems are not directed to an abstract idea)
- BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (specific arrangements of known elements that yield a technical improvement can supply the inventive concept)
- Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims must show improvement in computer function to avoid being treated as an abstract idea)
- Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., 566 U.S. 66 (2012) (laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patent-eligible)