are there any examples of Business Method patents I can look at?

[Bansaw]

I am thinking of filing a provisional patent for my business method.
But I'd like to see some examples of business method patents to give me an idea of what they should look like.

Any examples viewable online?

[JimIvey]

I am thinking of filing a provisional patent for my business method.
But I'd like to see some examples of business method patents to give me an idea of what they should look like.

Any examples viewable online?

What do you mean by "business method patents"?  Not everybody agrees on a definition. 

In the PTO, those are computer patents in which data represents money.  You can search for class 705 in the PTO's search tool.

To pretty much everyone else who is familiar with computer-implemented inventions and Section 101 thinks the term is meaningless.  If you want to see examples of patents rejected under Section 101 for failing to recite significantly more than a fundamental economic practice, take a look at the patents at issue in Kappos v. Bilski and Alice v. CLS.  Maybe those are "business method patents", but I believe at least the Bilski court said the term had no relevance in S 101 analysis.

When a client asks for a "business method patent", I ask what that means to him/her.  If they really just want a regular software patent in which some data might represent money, I explain that that's just a software patent.  If they want a patent on their business structure and business plan, I explain that it's really really hard to get patents for which you'd have to read contracts to see if someone infringes.

I'm not sure I've answered your question.  If you can be more specific about what you're looking for, maybe I can be more detailed suggestions.

Regards.

[Bansaw]

Thanks for taking the time to reply Jim.
My business method is a kind of e-commerce online finance model.

Lets say (for arguments sake), the Pyramid selling scheme had never been thought of and I came up with the idea of doing in online in a unique way.
If this is my business model, can I apply for a utility type provisional patent ?
I read that online e-commerce financial methods were the kind that could be patented.

[JimIvey]

First, there's no such thing as a "utility type provisional patent."  Let me parse that out a bit.  There are only certain types of patents, and "provisional" is not one of them.  "Utility" is.  So, what you're asking about is a provisional application for a utility patent.  The significant part there is that a "provisional" application is like a "provisional" ballot when voting.  It's not a real application but it can be, provided you do more.  Similarly, a provisional ballot doesn't count until somebody checks it out or you provide proof that your ballot is legitimate -- then it becomes "non-provisional" or "complete" or "real". 

In these forums, we've been 'round-and-'round about what value, if any, provisional applications have.  Just be aware that most provisional patent applications (PPAs) aren't worth the paper they're printed on and most are filed electronically.  Generally, PPAs don't hurt your patent rights only when you didn't need to file them at all.

Re online finance models:  That area of the law is changing, and dramatically, right now.  The Patent Office currently thinks that any computer-implemented invention in which data represents money or that can be implemented without special-purpose hardware is not eligible for patent protection, no matter how new or non-obvious.  Naturally, they're wrong, but be prepared to fight a lot about that.

Where the law appears to be right now is that, if you're idea is to take a well-known, "fundamental", economic practice and get a patent on all computer implementations of that, you're out of luck.  Examples of such fundamental economic practices include hedging and intermediate settlement (like escrow).  Let's say your online finance model implemented intermediated settlement online.  If your patent effectively covered all computer implementations of intermediated settlement, you're out of luck.  However, in theory, if your patent only covered a particular type of computer-implemented intermediate settlement and allowed numerous other types of computer-implemented intermediate settlement to peacefully coexist, you should be alright.

Regards.

[Bansaw]

any computer-implemented invention in which data represents money

So, my example of a unique online pyramid model would not quality as patentable?
What about a unique Crowdfunding model thats not been seen before?  Is that what you mean by data representing money.

If I do get a provisional application filed does that offer me any protection whatsoever against my model being stolen?
I also plan to have a website up and running, although not fully functional, so I can prove my model has been implemented at least at an early phase.

My business model is not something I have the financial backing for myself so I can't start it myself, but a large company with a certain infrastructure could and it would be profitable for them.
My worry is that I present this model to a big company and they just say,"ok thanks, we'll take it from here."  and cut me out completely.   (My thinking is that a provisional application would at the very least make the company think twice before walking off with my idea as they could face a legal threat in an area which is not well defined.  They might think,"this might not be worth the risk as this guy might take us to court..."?)

thanks,,

[patent_type_real]

Consider taking that idea in your head and writing and drawing out in excruciating detail how one would implement that idea.  Come up with examples (they can be prophetic) and expected results.  Detail possible alternatives.  Put in drawings about how the screens, input, whatever would or could look.

File that writing as a provisional patent application.  The filing of a patent application can be seen as a "constructive" reduction to practice.

Pitch the idea to the big companies as a "patent pending" neat, nifty great online transaction tool.  but you cannot disclose it without a non-disclosure agreement (written by an attorney, by the way).  If they agree to your NDA, you can pitch the idea and give them a copy of the patent application.

You aren't going to get a patent on your neat, nifty online transaction idea, so don't get your hopes up.  Software-related patents are, uh, no longer in the program.  One can claim "patent pending" if they have, well, a patent pending, regardless of whether it is just-filed, rejected umpteen times, or whatever, so long as the application is pending.

But jumping through the hoops I describe will provide a possible modicum of protection and will demonstrate your seriousness to any potential partners.  This also will help you organize your thoughts and your potential pitch to those grumpy, cold, big companies whose money you want to take and that are out to steal your idea.

Also, get your crafty patent professional to expressly retain copyright rights to any drawings you put into the patent application (if not done expressly and craftily, you may lose copyright rights to the drawings).  Then you might could (whoEVER started putting those two words together?!) have some copyright rights in the actual drawings (prophetic screen shots, etc.) filed with this patent application and might could register those rights with the Copyright Office to enforce against those bad, mean big companies who just use your idea and screen shots without your permission.

BUT, consider that I am one of those patent professionals whom you would have to pay to help you jump through those hoops, so I have a vested interest in encouraging you to pay a patent professional to throw one of those Hail Mary passes.  [patent_type, patentgreedy and david (PPD, providing PPD(SM) legal services--the most expensive legal services that money can buy (SM); no charge is too much for our VIP clients (SM))]

Maybe it is just better to openly disclose your idea and hope that somebody will pay you for it out of the goodness of their hearts that have an empty hole and are full of unwashed socks, whose soul has garlic and is full of gunk.  Maybe their heart will grow three sizes one day.

Then again, that's what open source is all about, eh?

Well, at least that is how I answered your question when you posted it in the copyright section.  http://www.intelproplaw.com/ip_forum/index.php/topic,27655.msg125279.html#msg125279

[Bansaw]

Well, at least that is how I answered your question when you posted it in the copyright section.

Thanks patent_type_real... my thinking had evolved slightly from copyright to patent of a business method because I did read
Business method patents are a class of patents which disclose and claim new methods of doing business. This includes new types of e-commerce, insurance, banking and tax compliance etc.
And my case is an e-commerce business method.

Maybe it is just better to openly disclose your idea and hope that somebody will pay you for it out of the goodness of their hearts

Does that happen sometimes in reality?   I would if I could be more confident in that. 

[JimIvey]

any computer-implemented invention in which data represents money

So, my example of a unique online pyramid model would not quality as patentable?
What about a unique Crowdfunding model thats not been seen before?  Is that what you mean by data representing money.

There's a difference between how the Patent Office implements the law and how the law really is.  If your claim recites a computer-implemented method in which some data represents money, the Patent Office will reject it twice and then you can appeal to the Patent and Trademark Appeal Board (PTAB).  That nearly always happens to all applications anyway.  That will keep happening until the PTAB starts making some decisions that are contrary, then the examiners might back off a bit.  But, right now, no e-commerce claims are getting through examiners -- only through the PTAB.  If the PTAB refuses to apply the law correctly, you have to appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir.), or hope someone else does before you.  Even then, there are some Fed. Cir. judges that insist on misapplying the law set down by the Supreme Court, holding all software claims invalid.  So, you have to hope someone petitions for a rehearing en banc (all the judges of the Fed. Cir., not just a panel of 3).  It might even take clarification from the Supreme Court to clean up its mess.

But, the law is on your side.  Everyone else is on the other side.

The pyramid scheme is a bad example because those have been around forever.  But suppose your system implements a specific type of pyramid scheme that is different from what others have done so far.  Maybe kickbacks don't just go up the pyramid but can also go down the pyramid in certain circumstances.  Maybe multiple pyramids can overlap.  Maybe you have special anti-fraud measures within the pyramid management.  The law, as I currently understand it, should allow your claim to move past 101 (the types of technology that are eligible for patent protection) to 102 and 103 (what's new and not obvious).

If I do get a provisional application filed does that offer me any protection whatsoever against my model being stolen?
I also plan to have a website up and running, although not fully functional, so I can prove my model has been implemented at least at an early phase.

Here's how it works.  No patent application immediately protects you from idea theft -- at all.  A provisional application only protects you (in the very small way described below) if it meets the very same requirements that a real, non-provisional patent application must meet.  If you wouldn't write your own real patent application, you shouldn't rely on any protection provided by a provisional application you write yourself.

Patent applications (if they're legally sufficient) protect you in one small way.  Anything that happens after you file the application won't interfere with your ability to get a patent.  So, if Google or Chase or some other company implements a service just like yours after you file an legally sufficient application, that won't stop you from getting a patent.  You won't be able to stop them from providing that service until you get your actual patent -- typically years later.

My business model is not something I have the financial backing for myself so I can't start it myself, but a large company with a certain infrastructure could and it would be profitable for them.
My worry is that I present this model to a big company and they just say,"ok thanks, we'll take it from here."  and cut me out completely.   (My thinking is that a provisional application would at the very least make the company think twice before walking off with my idea as they could face a legal threat in an area which is not well defined.  They might think,"this might not be worth the risk as this guy might take us to court..."?)

That's a completely legitimate concern.  The way most people deal with that is to get venture capital from an investor.  That could provide capital to seek patent protection, launch the service, and provide at least the appearance of the potential to enforce patent rights.

patent_type_real (I just realized that might be a nod to how worthless many provisional applications are) suggests using a "thin" PPA to get "patent pending" status and using that to seek a deal (either for financing or for licensing).  I've seen all kinds of things with that strategy.  Some investors/companies are still a bit naive about PPAs.  However, other investors/companies -- particularly those who deal with patents all the time, think software, Silicon Valley, etc. -- are very sophisticated and may dismiss a PPA as a worthless piece of paper but perhaps still useful as something akin to a white paper description of your technology/idea.

Regards.

[khazzah]

There's a difference between how the Patent Office implements the law and how the law really is.  If your claim recites a computer-implemented method in which some data represents money, the Patent Office will reject it twice ....
It might even take clarification from the Supreme Court to clean up its mess.

But, the law is on your side.  Everyone else is on the other side.

Bansaw, the Supreme Court's decision in Alice v CLS bank, applying Section 101 of the the patent law statute, is what we're all talking about here. That, and how by the PTO (Examiners then PTAB) and the courts interpret / implement that decision.

There's a ton of information out there about Alice and it's application to "business method" patents and "software" patents. If you're considering filing a patent application on e-commerce, you should probably read up on the topic.

Here are a few links to various posts about this topic on the IP Watchdog website (one of the most popular IP law blogs):

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/06/27/alice-the-illusory-death-of-software-patents/id=50194/
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/12/16/post-alice-allowances-rare-in-business-method/id=52675/
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/12/19/surviving-101-challenges-after-alice-gone-wild/id=52740/
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/03/26/the-unforeseen-impact-of-alice/id=56105/

[khazzah]

As just a random example of how random patent prosecution is, just ran across a claim directed to a method of managing collateral that made it past the PTAB. No 101 rejection going up to appeal. And in the appeal decision issued this week, the PTAB did not raise a new ground under 101.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22398979/year2015/2404/affirmed/Kochansky.pdf

Why did this claim pass muster under 101, when every single day claims that are

• less abstract
• less businsess-methodY
• more deserving of patent protection

get stuck in prosecution -- or worse, get invalidated by a court or a post-grant proceeding.

The simple answer is that patent prosecution is RANDOM. Meaning it has less to do with the claims and the state of the law, and a lot more on the Examiner.

Other factors that might be at work in this particular case:

• Timing -- Appeal filed  in 2011 (pre-Alice so under  Bilski regime)
• Claim type -- means-plus-function elements (though in a Method claim)

[MLM]

The simple answer is that patent prosecution is RANDOM. Meaning it has less to do with the claims and the state of the law, and a lot more on the Examiner.

So very true. I am prosecuting a continuation where the SAME examiner who allowed the SAME claims in the parent now has found lots of prior art to reject those SAME claims.

I think in the case of this PTAB case, why go to 101 when 103 will do just fine?

[Robert K S]

And this is a revelation how?

[MYK]

You aren't going to get a patent on your neat, nifty online transaction idea, so don't get your hopes up.  Software-related patents are, uh, no longer in the program.

We just got an allowance on a software-related patent two months ago.

"Methods of organizing human behavior" and "putting common old ideas on a computer" are no longer in the program.  There are plenty of computer-implemented methods that aren't those.

[ChrisWhewell]

Provided there's significant novelty, its often possible to frame a "business method" disclosure to contain a claim falling within one of the four statutorily-permissible patentable subject matter areas, provided its not obvious and provided its not merely taking things people have been doing before and implementing it on a computer or network, or isn't attempting to claim an abstract concept.