Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> Patently Obvious
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Patent Law
: Patently ObviousPatent on Tax Refund System Deemed Invalid under Section 101
By Dennis Crouch, Esq.
H&R Block v. Jackson Hewitt (E.D. Tex. 2009)
E.D. Texas Magistrate Judge Love has recommended that H&R Block's advance-tax-refund patents be held invalid for failing to claim patentable subject matter under Bilski. The claims in question are all directed toward either a "computerized system" or "computer-implemented method." Quoting Nuijten, the court first held that Bilski controls both system and method claims ? since a "court should not be 'overly concerned with pigeonholing subject matter once the court assures itself that some category has been satisfied.'"
The claimed invention involves issuing a cash-advance to income tax filers and then retaining a right to receive payment from the government.
The court held that none of the claims satisfied the particular-machine-or-transformation test. The "computerized system" claims did not identify a "particular, special purpose machine" that was more than "an insignificant, extra-solution component of the claimed invention." Likewise, the transformation of "tax return data" into a "spending vehicle" is not the type of transformation required under the test.
"At all steps in the claimed processes, the manipulated data represent legal obligations and relationships. However described, the data and resulting loan represent money. Although tangible in some forms, money is simply a representation of a legal obligation or abstract concept."
Claim 1 of Patent 7,072,862 reads as follows:
-
A computerized system for distributing spending vehicles comprising:
- a payment due from a governmental entity;
- an assignable right to receive said payment from said governmental entity, said assignable right held by an individual;
- a spending vehicle offered by a third party sponsor to said individual in exchange for at least a portion of said individual's right to receive said payment due;
- an assignment of at least a portion of said individual's right to receive said payment to said third party sponsor in exchange for said spending vehicle;
- wherein information associating said payment with said spending vehicle from said third party sponsor is stored in and retrieved from a computer to facilitate processing of said spending vehicle and said spending vehicle is issued to said individual in an amount for spending by said individual of said at least a portion of said payment, said governmental entity is electronically notified to transfer said at least a portion of said payment to said third party sponsor, and said at least a portion of said payment is received by said third party sponsor.
Full post as published by Patently Obvious on November 17, 2009 (boomark / email).
Child Support Survival Guide
The Child Support Enforcement System
Zantac Patent
GlaxoSmithKline and Cypress Pharmaceutical settle patent infringement dispute.
Soliris Patent
Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc. agrees to pay the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation a $10 million patent infringement settlement.
DRAM Patent
ProMOS Technologies and Mosel Vitelic pay MOSAID Technologies an undisclosed patent infringement settlement.
Billing Overcharges
T-Mobile USA agrees to refund customers $2.2 million in class action settlement.
Impounded Vehicles
City of Miami may have to refund $12 million in collected fees in class action settlement.
Property Tax
City of Midland agrees to refund Midland Cogeneration Venture $36.2 million for over assessing land.

Decided A Patent Should Be Held Invalid Celebrate by Donating Blood.
Judge Clark finds patent invalid on remand in Finisar v. DirecTV
Something Smells Phishy - Fake IRS Refund Emails
You Cant Rely On Test Results That Werent Available When Your Patent Application Was Filed
Ancient US patent invalid over prior public use







