Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. Of Canada (u.s.)
687 F.3d 1266
| Fed. Cir. | 2012Background
- Bancorp owns the ’792 and ’037 patents on a system for managing a stable value protected investment plan.
- Patents share a 1996 priority date and relate to administering and tracking separate account life insurance policies (COLI/BOLI).
- The district court granted summary judgment that the asserted claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101; Bancorp appeals.
- Earlier litigation involved judgments and reversals related to indefiniteness and noninfringement; Bancorp’s current case follows district court and prior appellate proceedings.
- The patents disclose computer-implemented calculations to track book value and market value, compute credits, and determine surrender value protections and related values.
- Independent ’792 and ’037 claims cover methods; dependent claims add computer limitations; ’037 also contains computer readable medium and system claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether system/medium claims are abstract ideas or patent-eligible | Bancorp argues computer components make system/medium claims patent-eligible. | Sun Life contends system/medium claims are just abstract ideas embodied in hardware. | System/medium claims treated as equivalent to method claims; not patent-eligible |
| Whether independent method claims require a computer | Independent method claims are not limited to computers; claim differentiation favors no computer requirement. | Dependant claims impose computer performance; computer is integral to processing. | Independent method claims do not require a computer; computer limitations in dependent claims do not save them |
| Whether the subject matter is patent-eligible under § 101 as abstract ideas | Claims are directed to a market-ready, complex financial technique with computer automation. | Claims recite abstract idea of managing a stable value policy via calculations; computer use is insufficient to transform. | Claims are abstract ideas; not patent-eligible |
| Application of machine-or-transformation test to the claims | Claimed computer-enabled processes transform data and thus should pass the test. | No meaningful transformation; data remains data; computer merely automates calculations. | Neither machine nor transformation prong satisfied; claims fail § 101 |
Key Cases Cited
- Benson v. Gottschalk, 409 U.S. 63 (Supreme Court 1972) (mathematical algorithms are not patentable by themselves)
- Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (Supreme Court 1978) (abstract idea exceptions; post-solution additions must contribute more)
- Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (Supreme Court 1981) (application of a formula to a process may be patentable)
- Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (Supreme Court 1980) (laws of nature and abstract ideas are not patentable)
- Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (Supreme Court 2010) (abstract ideas not patentable; business methods require additional features)
- CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (format of claim does not trump eligibility; underlying invention analyzed)
- Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (improvement to computer technology may render claims patent-eligible)
- SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (core inventive concept must be integrated; mere computer facilitation is insufficient)
- CLS Bank Int'l v. Alice Corp., 2012 WL 2708400 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (claim format does not determine patent eligibility; limitation must limit concept)
- Fort Properties, Inc. v. American Master Lease LLC, 671 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (computer limitations must play a significant part in performing the invention)
- In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (apparent to determine whether apparatus claims fall within abstract idea)