Claims that are squarely about creating a “contractual relationship” (e.g., a “transaction performance guaranty”) fall under the purview of abstract ideas for the purposes of subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The “contractual relationship” classification is introduced here by the CAFC as an umbrella term for the arrangements at issue in Alice and Bilski. “The relevant Supreme Court cases are those which find an abstract idea in certain arrangements involving contractual relations, which are intangible entities.”
Background / Facts: The patents being asserted here are directed to, in the words of the court, “creating familiar commercial arrangements by use of computers and networks” to guarantee a party’s performance of its online transaction. In this regard, the claims recite methods and systems in which (1) a computer operated by the provider of a safe transaction service receives a request for a performance guarantee for an “online commercial transaction”; (2) the computer processes the request by underwriting the requesting party in order to provide the transaction guarantee service; and (3) the computer offers, via a “computer network,” a transaction guaranty that binds to the transaction upon the closing of the transaction.
Issue(s): Whether guaranteeing a party’s performance of its online transaction falls under the purview of abstract ideas for the purposes of subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Holding(s): Yes. “The claims in this case do not push or even test the boundaries of the Supreme Court precedents under section 101. The claims are squarely about creating a contractual relationship—a ‘transaction performance guaranty’—that is beyond question of ancient lineage. … The claims thus are directed to an abstract idea. The claims’ invocation of computers adds no inventive concept. The computer functionality is generic—indeed, quite limited: a computer receives a request for a guarantee and transmits an offer of guarantee in return. There is no further detail. That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification— is not even arguably inventive. The computers in Alice were receiving and sending information over networks connecting the intermediary to the other institutions involved, and the Court found the claimed role of the computers insufficient. [] And it likewise cannot be enough that the transactions being guaranteed are themselves online transactions. At best, that narrowing is an ‘attempt[] to limit the use’ of the abstract guarantee idea ‘to a particular technological environment,’ which has long been held insufficient to save a claim in this context.”