Yet Another Example of Electric Power Group (EPG) Killing a Patent

In today’s AGI SureTrack LLC, v. Farmers Edge Inc. case, the Federal Circuit used EPG to once again strike down a patent for failing to recite patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The technology involves collecting farming operation data using devices attached to farming equipment while the equipment is operating and then processing and sharing the data. The representative claim is very detailed, spanning almost two pages of the opinion, and is drafted using a lot of technology (e.g., “A relay device for tracking farming operations … comprising: (a) a microprocessor; (b) a bus connector … ; (c) a [GPS] receiver; (d) a memory storage area … ; and (e) an application program comprising programming instructions that … (i) extract content …; (ii) use the extracted content …; and (iv) record the farming operation….”). However, the application program steps are somewhat functionally drafted.

At step one, the court stated, “the specification describes the claimed invention as a computer-implemented method for gathering and processing farming data.” Then, the court dropped the EPG bomb, “[a]s we have by now frequently held, claims reciting generalized steps of collecting, analyzing, and presenting information, using nothing other than the conventional operations of generic computer components, are directed to abstract ideas.” The court rejected AGI’s argument that its system can detect the communication protocol being used for a particular piece of farm equipment and uses the appropriate “implement profiles” to decode the data because the profiles are “simply a collection of data … that can be used to decode or interpret other data.” Further, the court held that using “one set of data (implement profiles) to interpret another set of data … ‘merely adds one abstract concept to another.'” (citing ChargePoint). The court also held that the claims are not directed to an improvement in “computer functionality but instead invoke the use of generic computer components to collect, analyze, and transmit farming data.”

At step two, the court held that the claims “are directed to gathering and analyzing a particular type of data and do not disclose any specific inventive technology for performing those functions.” In fact, the claims “rely on generic computer components … which are used in a conventional manner to collect, analyze, and display data.”

Here are the takeaways. First, claims directed to data analysis/manipulation continue to face an uphill battle at the Federal Circuit. And, second, merely adding a bunch of technological limitations and details won’t save your claim from EPG if it’s directed to collecting, analyzing, and presenting information.