BANCORP SERVICES v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada
771 F. Supp. 2d 1054
E.D. Mo.2011Background
- Bancorp holds U.S. Patent Nos. 5,926,792 and 7,249,037 directed to a system for managing and tracking stable-value life insurance policies (COLI/BOLI).
- Bancorp alleges Sun Life infringing claims 9, 17, 18, 28, 37 of the '792 patent and various claims of the '037 patent.
- Sun Life moves for summary judgment contending asserted claims are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as abstract ideas post-Bilski.
- Court must assess patent eligibility, applying machine-or-transformation tests and abstract-idea analysis, prior to claim construction.
- Court addresses § 101 issues first and finds the asserted claims fail § 101 as abstract ideas and not tied to a patent-eligible transformation or machine.
- Disposition: Sun Life's motion granted; Bancorp’s other motions denied as moot; judgment forthcoming in Sun Life’s favor on infringement issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the asserted claims patent-eligible under §101 after Bilski? | Bancorp argues claims provide concrete system for managing policies; not abstract. | Sun Life contends claims claim abstract ideas (data processing) lacking patent-eligibility. | Not patent-eligible under §101; claims are abstract ideas. |
| Do the machine-or-transformation criteria render the claims patent-eligible? | Claims involve a machine and transformations of data. | Claims fail the machine and/or transformation prongs; data handling is insignificant post-solution activity. | Claims fail both prongs; not patent-eligible. |
| Should claim construction precede §101 analysis? | Claims construction should be completed before §101 ruling. | §101 analysis can proceed without full claim construction; not required first. | Court proceeded with §101 analysis prior to complete claim construction and granted summary judgment. |
| Is the claimed method tied to a specific machine or apparatus? | Claims recite computer components and hardware. | Recited hardware is generic, not a specific machine; constitutes insignificant post-solution activity. | Not tied to a specific machine; fails §101. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010) (the machine-or-transformation test is a useful clue, not exclusive)
- Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972) (abstract ideas not patentable; basic tools of scientific work)
- Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) (computer use is not the patentable feature; process must claim more than a math formula)
- Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978) (post-solution activity cannot transform abstract idea into patentable process)
- In re Comiskey, 554 F.3d 967 (2009) (patent eligibility requires more than mental processes; §101 analysis)
- In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346 (2007) (process claims must fall into statutory categories; abstract ideas not patentable)
- Prometheus Labs., Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., 628 F.3d 1347 (2010) (machine-or-transformation test remains a useful indicator of patentability)
- Research Corp. Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (2010) (post-Bilski, hardware considerations do not automatically render abstract ideas patentable)