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 ยง 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: