In the recent case of Facebook, Inc. [2020] APO 19 (Facebook Inc.), the Patent’s office considered whether software that tracks the installation of applications on mobile devices following interactions with advertisements qualifies as a manner of manufacture and is therefore patentable subject matter.
Background of Facebook Inc.
Facebook filed an application for letters patent relating to ‘conversion tracking’, which describes the tracking of installations of native or mobile applications by users as a result of interactions with advertisements. The issue was whether the application was a computer-implemented method. The claimed invention tracks how advertisements from social media sites direct users to download a mobile application from an app store. It works as follows:
- the data of mobile application includes instructions from the social media site to store an indication the mobile application had been downloaded in a “shared memory location” on the device; then
- the social media platform retrieves information from the “shared memory location” about the download of the mobile application and sends it back to the online system of the social media site.
The invention overcomes the difficulties of native or mobile applications being ‘sandboxed’. Sandboxing occurs when two native applications are unable to convey information with each other, which causes difficulty for advertisers to determine whether users that interacted with their advertisement have utilised a link in the advertisement to download an application or not. However, Facebook’s invention allowed data to be written to a shared memory location that is external to the sandbox of the application, hence enabling the sharing of information.
Can generic computer implementation still provide a technical improvement?
The decision of a Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents (Delegate) focused on the consideration of the five factors taken from Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd [2016] APO 49 (Aristocrat). These are:
- is the contribution of the claimed invention technical in nature?
- is the computer merely the intermediary, configured to perform the method, but adding nothing to the substance of the idea?
- does the method merely require generic computer implementation?
- does the claimed invention result in an improvement in the functioning of the computer, regardless of the data being processed?
- does the claimed invention solve a technical problem in the functioning of the mobile device?
The Delegate’s findings
The Delegate applied the Aristocrat factors above and decided that tracking advertising attribution and conversion tracking is not technical in nature, and merely addressed a business problem. However it was highlighted that “the result that the invention provided is different from the substance of the invention”. With respect to this, the Delegate said:
“[a] claimed invention must be examined to ascertain whether it is in substance a scheme or plan or whether it can broadly be described as an improvement in computer technology”; and
“there must be more than an abstract idea: it must involve the creation of an artificial state of affairs where the computer is integral to the invention, rather than a mere tool in which the invention is performed”.
The Delegate acknowledged that the sand boxing of native applications was a technical limitation experienced by app developers. The Delegate concluded that Facebook’s invention was a sand boxing workaround method, and thus decided that there was a technical improvement in the application. Accordingly, the claims were found to be a manner of manufacture.
The Delegate accepted the invention functions entirely between a mobile device and an online system and hence “only require generic computer implementation”. However he was not convinced that the steps of the claim were more than generic computer implementation.
The Delegate agreed with Facebook that the substance of the invention was inaccurately characterised by the Examiner as the current claims were not reflected. The Delegate said there was no evidence that the device operates more efficiently, however was satisfied that the substance of the invention is a technical improvement in the operation of the computer.
Takeaways
The Australian Patent Office may be flexible in deciding when computer-implemented inventions are patentable. The decision emphasises that not all factors previously recited for determining a patent of a computer-implemented invention need to be satisfied. Furthermore, an invention that solves a business problem is considered as patentable subject matter even if it only requires generic computer implementation, so long as the technical improvement provided by the invention is correctly set out by the claims.
Links and further references
Legislation
Cases
Facebook, Inc. [2020] APO 19
Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd [2016] APO 49
Further information about patent rights
If you need assistance with protecting or enforcing your patent rights, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:
Malcolm Burrows B.Bus.,MBA.,LL.B.,LL.M.,MQLS.
Legal Practice Director
T: +61 7 3221 0013 (preferred)
M: +61 419 726 535
E: mburrows@dundaslawyers.com.au
Disclaimer
This article contains general commentary only. You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstances.
Related insights about patent rights
-
Software royalties and income tax – explained
Discover how the Australian Taxation Office (ATO)’s draft Taxation Ruling 2021/D4 could affect your business. Learn more about the expanded scope of what is considered a royalty for income tax purposes and the potential tax implications.
-
The Australian Cyber Law Map – overview
The Australian Cyber Law Map provides clarity on ever-changing legal landscape, covering commercial enterprises, cyber offences, infrastructure, international law, national security and personal rights. A source for understanding laws and providing safety/security in the digital age.
-
Explaining Australia’s Media Bargaining Code
The News Media Bargaining Code (NMBC) is quickly moving through Parliament and looks likely to become law. It requires digital platforms, such as Facebook and Google, to negotiate remuneration with News Companies for providing their media services. Non-compliance could result in hefty civil penalties.
-
My client poached my software developers – what can I do?
This article examines how professional service businesses can protect their investment in employees from clients poaching them. It looks at potential clauses such as client agreements, non-solicitation of employees, restraints of trade, confidential information, copyright and more.
-
Preliminary discovery granted in patent litigation
The Federal Court has weighed the patentee’s right to protect their intellectual property against the threshold for suspected patent infringement. Learn more about this case and its implications by reading the full article.
-
Indirect patent infringement – lessons from Quaker Chemical
Company found to have indirectly infringed two patents by supplying product to customers. Suppliers must be aware of customer use to avoid patent infringement.
-
Aristocrat wins big in Federal Court ruling
In the Federal Court’s decision of Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited v Commissioner of Patents [2020] FCA 778, the Court found that a claim for an electronic gaming machine with a combination of physical parts and computer software for gameplay did constitute patentable subject matter.
-
Patent granted for software tracking user actions
A decision by Australian Patent Office provides insight into patentable subject matter for computer-implemented inventions. Case of Facebook, Inc. [2020] APO 19 is a successful example of technical improvement in computer-implemented method, resulting in patentability even with generic computer implementation.
-
Use of IRUs in a telecommunications capacity
Learn how to structure IRUs for tax compliance and ensure your cable system capacity services are secure. Discover the key elements you need to include in your agreement to guarantee exclusive access and economic ownership rights.
