Source: https://www.manatt.com/Insights/Newsletters/Intellectual-Property-Law/Invention-for-Navigating-Complex-3-D-Worksheet-Hel
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 18:36:46+00:00

Document:
In Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC,1 the Federal Circuit held that an invention for navigating through complex three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets was patent-eligible subject matter. The invention solved the technological problem in computers by providing a highly intuitive, user-friendly interface with familiar notebook tabs for navigating the three-dimensional worksheet environment. However, a separate invention for tracking changes to data in spreadsheets was directed to the abstract idea of collecting, recognizing and storing changed information and deemed not patent-eligible.
Significantly, the court clarified that a claim is abstract if it is “directed to” the abstract idea itself. In addition, the court explained that the claimed notebook tabs provided a functional improvement by enabling a user to avoid the burdensome task of navigating through spreadsheets in separate windows using arbitrary commands. The notebook tabs were not merely labeled buttons or generic icons, but were specific structures used in a three-dimensional spreadsheet environment.
The Tab Patents recognized difficulties with navigating three-dimensional or multiple-page electronic spreadsheets. The Tab Patents described that complicated commands were needed to operate the three-dimensional spreadsheets. The Tab Patents employed an electronic spreadsheet scheme with a notebook interface having notebook pages with a range of information cells. Each page identifier had a tab member located along a bottom perimeter of the notebook. To pass between spreadsheet pages, the user chose the tab for that page.
(c) automatically determining cells of the data model which have changed by comparing cells in the new version against corresponding ones in the base set.
The Data Engine Techs. v. Google decision is noteworthy because the Federal Circuit clarified that a claim is considered abstract under step one of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International if it is “directed to” the abstract idea itself. In addition, the court explained that the claims were not abstract because they recited a particular manner of navigating three-dimensional spreadsheets and improved electronic spreadsheet functionality. Significantly, the court did not require the improvement to be in computer processing efficiency. Thus, this decision should increase the likelihood of patent eligibility for more computer software-related inventions.
1 Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999, 128 USPQ2d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
2 Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1382.
3 Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1382.
4 Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1382.
5 Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1383.
6 Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1384.
7 Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1384.
8 Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1385.
9 Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1385.
10 Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1385.
11 Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1385 (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 101).
12 Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1385–86 (quoting Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2355, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014)).
13 Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1386 (quoting Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1361, 125 USPQ2d 1436, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
14 Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1386 (quoting Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2355, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014); Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78–79, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968 (2012)).
15 Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1386.
16 Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1386.
17 Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1386.
18 Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1386.
19 Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1387.
20 Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1387 (quoting Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1363, 125 USPQ2d 1436, 1441 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
21 Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1387 (quoting US Patent No. 5,590,259, col. 3 ll. 53–54).
22Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1387 (citing Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1363, 125 USPQ2d 1436, 1441 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
23 Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1387 (quoting Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 F. App’x 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (alterations in original)).
24 Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1387–88 (quoting Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 F. App’x 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
25 Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1388.
26 Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1388.
27 Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1388 (quoting Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
28 Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1388–89 (quoting Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1050, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
29 Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1389.
30 Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1389.
31 Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1389.
32 Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1390.
33 Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1390.
34 Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1390.
35 Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1390.
36 Id., 128 USPQ2d at 1390.

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