Source: http://plusfirm.com/patentable-software-update-federal-circuit-finds-another-software-invention-patentable/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 14:40:52+00:00

Document:
Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corporation, serves as yet another example of how software may be patent eligible. In Visual Memory, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling and found that Visual Memory’s patent on a memory system with programmable operational characteristics tailored for use with multiple different processors was patent eligible subject matter under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 (“101”). This article discusses the Federal Circuit’s ruling in Visual Memory.
The 740 Patent specification describes a computer system that can be connected to multiple different types of processers and has “programmable operational characteristics” that can be tailored for use with the multiple different processors without reduction in performance. A schematic of the 740 Patent’s memory system is illustrated below.
The Court began the patentable subject matter analysis with step one of the Alice two-step analysis. The Court noted that while the two steps in the Alice framework “involve overlapping scrutiny of the content of the claims,” the “Supreme Court’s formulation makes clear that the first-stage filter is a meaningful one, sometimes ending the § 101 inquiry.” The Court stated that two recent cases, Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017), informed their evaluation of if the claims of the 740 Patent are directed to patentable subject matter.
The Court found that, like the patents at issue in Enfish and Thales, the specification of the 740 Patent discusses the advantages by the technological improvement. Court found that the 740 Patent is not a case where the claims merely recite the “use of an abstract mathematical formula on any general purpose computer,” “a purely conventional computer implementation of a mathematical formula” or “generalized steps to be performed on a computer using conventional computer activity.” Instead, the Court found that the specification of the 740 Patent described benefits of using a self-referential table – faster searching and more effective data storage – and cited the differences between the claimed self-referential table and the conventional database structure. Ultimately, the Court found that the claims of the 740 Patent were not directed to an abstract idea under step one of Alice and explained that while the 740 Patent “involves an abstract concept, that is not enough to render an invention patent ineligible.” Because the Court concluded that claims of the 740 Patent were not directed to an abstract idea, the Court did not proceed to step two the Alice test, which analyzes if a claim’s elements, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application.
The technology at issue in Visual Memory is yet another example of patent eligible software. The § 101 landscape related for software inventions continues to develop post-Alice and will continue to come into focus as decisions are issued. Software is critical in creating new and innovative improvements over existing technology and patent protection remains an integral component in protecting the resources spent developing software. To learn more about the author of this article, Derek Fahey, click HERE.
As a small business owner it is often hard to get straight reliable legal advice and Derek and his staff (Jill) were very direct and effective. I value a personal touch and Derek has always had an open door policy. I can highly recommend The Plus IP Firm for all business related to trademarks.
I had The Plus IP Firm register my trademark for my software product. They provided the right guidance the entire time and were able to get it registered without any objections. The process took a while, but that has nothing to do with them. It's just the process. Jill and Derek were great to work with and very responsive and helpful with any questions I had throughout the process. I also received a bunch of scam mail and Jill helped confirm for me that I did not need to pay any additional money. Very happy with their services and I would recommend them to anyone looking to register a trademark.
The Plus IP team of attorneys are great to work with. Patents and Trademarks are very complications and they do such a wonderful job of explaining the process in detail. Highly recommended!

References: v. 
 § 101
 § 101
 v. 
 v. 
 § 101