Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada

Decision Date26 July 2012
Docket NumberNo. 2011–1467.,2011–1467.
Citation687 F.3d 1266,103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1425
PartiesBANCORP SERVICES, L.L.C., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA (U.S.), Defendant–Appellee, and Analect LLC, Defendant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

687 F.3d 1266
103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1425

BANCORP SERVICES, L.L.C., Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA (U.S.), Defendant–Appellee,
and
Analect LLC, Defendant.

No. 2011–1467.

United States Court of Appeals,
Federal Circuit.

July 26, 2012.


[687 F.3d 1269]


David A. Perlson, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, of San Francisco, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant.
With him on the brief was Charles K. Verhoeven; and Ian S. Shelton, of Los Angeles, CA.

Matthew B. Lowrie, Foley & Lardner, LLP, of Boston, MA, argued for the defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Aaron W. Moore and Kevin M. Littman.


Before LOURIE, PROST, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

Bancorp Services, L.L.C. (“Bancorp”) appeals from the final decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, which entered summary judgment that the asserted claims of U.S. Patents 5,926,792 and 7,249,037 (the “'792 patent” and “'037 patent”) are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co., No. 4:00–cv–1073 (E.D.Mo. May 25, 2011) (Final Judgment), ECF No. 411. We affirm.

Background

Bancorp owns the '792 and '037 patents, both entitled “System for Managing a Stable Value Protected Investment Plan.” The patents share a specification and the priority date of September 1996. The '792 patent has been the subject of two prior appeals to this court. See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bancorp Servs., L.L.C., 527 F.3d 1330 (Fed.Cir.2008) (vacating summary judgment of noninfringement); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 359 F.3d 1367 (Fed.Cir.2004) (reversing summary judgment of invalidity for indefiniteness).

As explained in our earlier opinions and in the district court's opinion now on appeal in this case, the patents' specification discloses systems and methods for administering and tracking the value of life insurance policies in separate accounts. Separate account policies are issued pursuant to Corporate Owned Life Insurance (“COLI”) and Bank Owned Life Insurance (“BOLI”) plans. Under separate account COLI and BOLI plans the policy owner pays an additional premium beyond that required to fund the death benefit, and specifies the types of assets in which the additional value is invested. Banks and corporations use the policies to insure the lives of their employees and as a means of funding their employees' post-retirement benefits on a tax-advantaged basis. See Hartford, 359 F.3d at 1369.

The value of a separate account policy fluctuates with the market value of the underlying investment assets. That poses a problem from an accounting standpoint, as BOLI and COLI plan owners must ordinarily report, on a quarter-to-quarter basis, the value of any policies they own. Id. The volatility inherent in short-term market values has made some banks and companies reluctant to purchase these plans.

[687 F.3d 1270]

Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 771 F.Supp.2d 1054, 1056 (E.D.Mo.2011). Stable value protected investments address that problem by providing a mechanism for stabilizing the reported value of the policies, wherein a third-party guarantor (the “stable value protected writer”) guarantees a particular value (the “book value”) of the life insurance policy regardless of its market value. To offset the risk to a potential guarantor for providing that service, the guarantor is paid a fee and restrictions are placed on the policyholder's right to cash in on the policy. Hartford, 359 F.3d at 1369. As we previously explained, the asserted patents “provide[ ] a computerized means for tracking the book value and market value of the policies and calculating the credits representing the amount the stable value protected writer must guarantee and pay should the policy be paid out prematurely.” Id.

The asserted patents disclose specific formulae for determining the values required to manage a stable value protected life insurance policy. For example, the specification discloses creating and initializing a fund by performing particular “calculations and comparisons” to determine an “initial unit value of the policy.” '037 patent col.12 ll.56–58; see also id. col.11 l.67–col.12 l.57, fig. 11. The specification then discloses “processing [that] is required at regular intervals to track existing funds.” Id. col.12 ll.60–61; see also id. col.12 l.59–col.15 l.10, figs. 12–16. Such processing includes the calculation of “fees” for the individuals who manage the life insurance policy. Id. col.12 l.65–col.13 l.15. That processing also includes the computation of values used for determining “surrender value protection investment credits,” which, as we previously explained, “means the difference between the actual value of a protected investment and the targeted return value of that investment at the time the protected life insurance policy is surrendered.” Hartford, 359 F.3d at 1372. Those computations include the concept of a “targeted return,” calculated as follows:

The Stable Value Protected funds provide an initial targeted return for the first period of an investment. Upon completion of the first period, the value of the fund, the “market value,” is compared with the “calculated” value of the fund which is the “book value.” The “calculated” value of the fund is calculated by multiplying the initial value of the fund by (1+targeted return), wherein the targeted return for the next period is calculated using the formula:

TR=[ (MV/BV) (1/D)x(1+YTM) ]–1,

where [TR] is the targeted return, MV is the market value of a fund, BV is the book value of a fund, D is the duration of a fund and YTM is the current yield to market....

'037 patent col.3 ll.18–30; see also id. col.13 ll.44–53 (disclosing formulae for calculating a “policy value for the present day” and a “policy unit value for the present day”). Those computations also include the “duration of a fund,” which is calculated according to a formula well-known in the prior art. Id. col.3 l.28–col.4 l.5. As the specification explains, “[u]sing the concepts of duration and targeted return, the actual performance of the underlying securities in the fund is smoothed over time.” Id. col.4 ll.6–8.


At issue on appeal from the '792 patent are asserted claims 9, 17, 18, 28, and 37. The asserted claims include methods and computer-readable media. Claims 9 and 28 are independent method claims. Claims 9 reads:

9. A method for managing a life insurance policy on behalf of a policy holder, the method comprising the steps of:

[687 F.3d 1271]

generating a life insurance policy including a stable value protected investment with an initial value based on a value of underlying securities;

calculating fee units for members of a management group which manage the life insurance policy;

calculating surrender value protected investment credits for the life insurance policy;

determining an investment value and a value of the underlying securities for the current day;

calculating a policy value and a policy unit value for the current day;

storing the policy unit value for the current day; and

one of the steps of:

removing the fee units for members of the management group which manage the life insurance policy, and

accumulating fee units on behalf of the management group.

'792 patent col.16 l.55–col.17 l.8. Independent claim 28 claims “A method for managing a life insurance policy” comprising steps that are not materially different from the steps of claim 9. Id. col.19 ll.10–22. Claims 17 and 37 depend from independent claims 9 and 28, respectively, and require that the methods steps “are performed by a computer.” Id. col.17 ll.60–61; id. col.20 ll.32–33. Claim 18, the computer-readable medium claim, reads: “A computer readable medi[um] for controlling a computer to perform the steps” set out in method claim 9. Id. col.17 l.63–col.18 l.15.


Before us on appeal from the '037 patent are asserted claims 1, 8, 9, 17–21, 27, 28, 37, 42, 49, 52, 60, 63, 66–68, 72–77, 81–83, 87, 88, and 91–95. Independent claims 9, 28, and 52 claim a “method for managing a life insurance policy” that is not materially different from the methods claimed in the ' 792 patent. For example, claim 9 reads:

9. A method for managing a life insurance policy comprising:

generating a life insurance policy including a stable value protected investment with an initial value based on a value of underlying securities of the stable value protected investment;

calculating fees for members of a management group which manage the life insurance policy;

calculating credits for the stable value protected investment of the life insurance policy;

determining an investment value and a value of the underlying securities of the stable value protected investment for the current day;

calculating a policy value and a policy unit value for the current day;

storing the policy unit value for the current day; and

removing a value of the fees for members of the management group which manage the life insurance policy.

'037 patent col.16 ll.31–50. Each independent method claim is further limited in a dependent claim requiring that the method be “performed by a computer.” Id. claims 17, 37, 60. Independent claims 18 and 63 are directed to a “computer readable medi[um] for controlling a computer to perform the steps” set out in the method claims. Claim 18 for example, recites the same seven steps set forth in method claim 9, above.


Independent claims 1, 19, and 42 of the '037 patent are system claims, which track the content of the aforementioned method and medium claims. For example, claim 1 reads:

[687 F.3d 1272]

1. A life insurance policy management system comprising:

a policy generator for generating a life insurance policy including a stable value protected investment with an initial value based on a value of underlying securities of the stable value protected investment;

a fee calculator for calculating fees for members of a management group which manage the life insurance policy;

a credit calculator for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1783 cases
  • Carfax, Inc. v. Red Mountain Techs., Case No. 1:14–cv–01590–GBL–IDD.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 30 Marzo 2015
    ...a threshold inquiry and resolve it as a matter of law without first construing the claims. See Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 687 F.3d 1266, 1273–74 (Fed.Cir.2012). A party seeking to establish that particular claims are invalid must overcome the presumption of ......
  • Device Enhancement LLC. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • 17 Mayo 2016
    ...by the click of a hyperlink. ...In sum, the 399 patent's claims are unlike the claims in Alice , Ultramercial, buySAFE, Accenture , and Bancorp that were found to be "directed to" little more than an abstract concept. To be sure, the '399 patent's claims do not recite an invention as techno......
  • Whitserve, LLC v. Computer Packages, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • 10 Octubre 2012
    ...Inc. v. Graphon Corp., 672 F.3d 1250, 1267 (Fed.Cir.2012) (Mayer, J., dissenting) (footnote omitted); see Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266 (Fed.Cir.2012) (concluding that claims directed to a computerized method of managing a stable value protected life insurance......
  • Lite Machs. Corp. v. United States, 18-1411C
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • 21 Mayo 2019
    ...Lite Machines is permitted to plead in the alternative, regardless of consistency. RCFC 8(d)(3); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The fact that Lite Machines has done so here is not a valid basis for dismissal under RCFC 12(b)......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 firm's commentaries
  • Software Patents: History And Strategies (Pt. I – History)
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 24 Febrero 2016
    ...728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014); PerkinElmer Inc. v Intema Ltd., 496 Fed. Appx. 65 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Fort Properties, Inc. v. American Master Lease LLC, 671 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Dealertrack Inc. v Huber, 674 F.3d 1315......
  • A View From The Trenches: Section 101 Patent Eligibility Challenges In The Post-Bilski Trial Courts
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 6 Marzo 2014
    ...728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 15 Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co., 771 F. Supp. 2d 1054, 1056 (E.D. Mo. 2011), aff'd, 687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 16 Graff/Ross Holdings LLP v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 892 F. Supp. 2d 190, 197 (D.D.C. 2012). 17 Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Lear......
  • Abstract Idea Or Real World Software Solution?
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 27 Diciembre 2013
    ...idea because all of the steps can be performed in the human mind. Similarly, in Bancorp Servs. LLC v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, 687 F.3d 1266 (2012), Judges Alan Lourie and Evan Wallach, along with Prost, held that "[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not......
  • Post-Alice Corp. Decisions Show Increased Trend Of Courts Invalidating Computerized Business Method Patents
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 15 Septiembre 2014
    ...2013) ("system for generating tasks to be performed in an insurance organization"); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("method for managing a life insurance policy, including generating the policy, calculating fees, and determining the surrende......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Software Patentability After Prometheus
    • United States
    • Georgia State University College of Law Georgia State Law Reviews No. 30-4, June 2014
    • Invalid date
    ...employed to make calculations'" as the Federal Circuit tried to define it. Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1277-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012).2. See generally Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 40......
  • Patentable Subject Matter, Abstract Ideas, Business Methods, and the Patent Eligibility Trilogy
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association New Matter: Intellectual Property Law (CLA) No. 39-1, March 2014
    • Invalid date
    ...Properties, Inc. v. American Master Lease LLC, 671 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, 657 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2011), vacated sub nom. Wildtangent, Inc. v. Ultramercial, LLC, 1......
  • Prometheus v. Mayo: Limited Implications for Section 101 Jurisprudence
    • United States
    • University of Washington School of Law Journal of Law, Technology & Arts No. 8-5, July 2013
    • Invalid date
    ...Software Design Corp. v. Fiserv, Inc, 625 F. Supp. 2d 815 (E.D. Mo. 2012); Bancorp Services LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aria Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom Inc., 2012 WL 25999340 (N.D. Cal. 2012). 65. Nazomi Commc'n Inc. v. Samsung Telecomm., 2012 W......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT