Share this e-Alert:

Polsinelli Polsinelli Polsinelli Polsinelli Polsinelli Intellectual Property Intellectual Property


September 2016


Automatic Animation Software Method Found Patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101







For more information about this alert, please contact:


John R. Bednarz


Email | Bio


James M. Stipek


Email | Bio


Patrick C. Woolley


Email | Bio


To learn more about our Intellectual Property practice, to contact one of our Intellectual Property attorneys, or for more Intellectual Property Intelligence, click here.




Polsinelli Polsinelli Polsinelli Polsinelli View Polsinelli documents on JD Supra  



LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Polsinelli Podcast Connect with us on LinkedIn. Connection with us on Twitter. Connect with us on Facebook.

Since the Supreme Court's decision two years ago in Alice v. CLS Bank, courts and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office have found a large percentage of software and computer-related inventions to claim abstract ideas and not be directed to patentable subject matter – but a decision earlier this month represents a significant step in the other direction.

In a recent Federal Circuit decision, McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco, claims of two software-related patents entitled "Method for Automatically Animating Lip Synchronization and Facial Expression of Animated Characters" were found to be directed to patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In McRO, the claims were found to represent a process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result using rules embodied in computer software processed by general purpose computers.

The court referred to the Alice/Mayo two-step framework for analyzing whether claims are patent eligible. First, it is determined whether the claim at issue is "directed to" a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea. The Federal Circuit warned that "[w]e do not assume that such claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter because 'all inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas'" and stressed that the analysis must consider the claim as a whole. Step two includes consideration of whether the claims contain an "inventive concept" sufficient to "transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible invention."

The claimed process used a combined order of specific rules that rendered information into a specific format that is used and applied to create desired results, including a sequence of synchronized, animated characters. The incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, improved the existing technological process. As a result, the patent claims were not directed to an abstract idea, and there was no analysis under step two of the Alice framework.

McRO follows two other recent Federal Circuit decisions that found software and computer-related claims to be patent-eligible, including the May Federal Circuit opinion, Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., and the June Federal Circuit opinion, BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC. In Enfish, the court rejected another lower court ruling and found a database software related patent to be eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims were found to be directed to computer functionality and not an abstract idea. In BASCOM, the district court found that the claims were directed to merely filtering content provided on the Internet, which is a well-known method of organizing human activity, but the Federal Circuit reversed and held that the claims do not merely recite the abstract idea of filtering content along with the requirement to perform it on the internet. McRO, Enfish, and BASCOM represent a growing number of court decisions finding computer-implemented patent claims to be patent eligible and the first important decisions since the December 2014 DDR Holdings Federal Circuit decision.

Although the patent landscape has shifted significantly since Alice, recent Federal Circuit decisions have shown that specific computer-implemented patent claims processed by general purpose computers remain patent eligible.

For More Information

For more information on this ruling or how it may impact your business, please contact one of the authors or your Polsinelli attorney.













Atlanta  Boston  Chattanooga  Chicago  Dallas  Denver  Houston  Kansas City  Los Angeles  Nashville  New York
Overland Park  Phoenix  Raleigh  San Francisco  Silicon Valley  St. Joseph  St. Louis  Washington, D.C.  Wilmington








real challenges. real answers.SM  
Polsinelli is an Am Law 100 firm with more than 800 attorneys in 20 offices, serving corporations, institutions, and entrepreneurs nationally. Ranked in the top five percent of law firms for client service*, the firm has risen more than 50 spots over the past five years in the Am Law 100 annual law firm ranking. Polsinelli attorneys provide practical legal counsel infused with business insight, and focus on health care, financial services, real estate, intellectual property, mid-market corporate, and business litigation. Polsinelli attorneys have depth of experience in 100 service areas and 70 industries. The firm can be found online at Polsinelli PC. In California, Polsinelli LLP.

* 2016 BTI Client Service A-Team Report







Polsinelli provides this material for informational purposes only. The material provided herein is general and is not intended to be legal advice. Polsinelli is very proud of the results we obtain for our clients, but you should know that past results do not guarantee future results; that every case is different and must be judged on its own merits; and that the choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

Copyright © 2016 Polsinelli PC.

Connect with us on LinkedIn. Connection with us on Twitter. Connect with us on Facebook. Intellectual Property Polsinelli Polsinelli Intellectual Property