How does insignificant computer implementation relate to insignificant extra-solution activity?
Insignificant computer implementation and insignificant extra-solution activity are related concepts in patent law, but they are treated slightly differently. The MPEP 2106.05(g) addresses this relationship:
“Some cases have identified insignificant computer implementation as an example of insignificant extra-solution activity. See e.g., Fort Props., Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC, 671 F.3d 1317, 1323-24, 101 USPQ2d 1785, 1789-90 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, 687 F.3d 1266, 1280-81, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434-35 (Fed. Cir. 2012).”
However, the MPEP also notes that other cases have treated insignificant computer implementation differently:
“Other cases have considered these types of limitations as mere instructions to apply a judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about insignificant computer implementation.”
This distinction is important because it affects how these elements are analyzed in the context of patent eligibility. Examiners must carefully consider whether a computer implementation element is best characterized as insignificant extra-solution activity or as mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, as this can impact the overall eligibility analysis.
To learn more: