State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc

Citation149 F.3d 1368,47 USPQ2d 1596
Decision Date23 July 1998
Docket NumberNo. 96-1327,96-1327
PartiesSTATE STREET BANK & TRUST CO., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SIGNATURE FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

William L. Patton, Ropes & Gray, Boston, Massachusetts, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief were James L. Sigel and James S. DeGraw. Also on the brief was Maurice E. Gauthier, Samuels, Gauthier, Stevens & Reppert.

Steven L. Friedman, Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish & Kauffman LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were Steven J. Henry, Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C., Boston, Massachusetts; and Philip G. Koenig, Pittas //Koenig, Winchester, Massachusetts.

William T. Ellis, Foley & Lardner, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae Information Technology Industry Council. With him on the brief were Harold C. Wegner, Richard L Robert C. Scheinfeld, Baker & Botts, L.L.P., New York, New York, for amicus curiae Mastercard International Service. With him on the brief was Lawrence T. Kass. Of counsel on the brief for amicus curiae VISA International Service Association were Laurie S. Hane, Donald S. Chisum, and Alan L. Durham, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Palo Alto, California.

Schwaab, and Mary Michelle Kile. Of counsel was John F. Cooney, Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti, LLP.

Before RICH, PLAGER, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.

RICH, Circuit Judge.

Signature Financial Group, Inc. (Signature) appeals from the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granting a motion for summary judgment in favor of State Street Bank & Trust Co. (State Street), finding U.S. Patent No. 5,193,056 (the '056 patent) invalid on the ground that the claimed subject matter is not encompassed by 35 U.S.C. § 101 (1994). See State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 927 F.Supp. 502, 38 USPQ2d 1530 (D.Mass.1996). We reverse and remand because we conclude that the patent claims are directed to statutory subject matter.

BACKGROUND

Signature is the assignee of the '056 patent which is entitled "Data Processing System for Hub and Spoke Financial Services Configuration." The '056 patent issued to Signature on 9 March 1993, naming R. Todd Boes as the inventor. The '056 patent is generally directed to a data processing system (the system) for implementing an investment structure which was developed for use in Signature's business as an administrator and accounting agent for mutual funds. In essence, the system, identified by the proprietary name Hub and Spoke TM, facilitates a structure whereby mutual funds (Spokes) pool their assets in an investment portfolio (Hub) organized as a partnership. This investment configuration provides the administrator of a mutual fund with the advantageous combination of economies of scale in administering investments coupled with the tax advantages of a partnership.

State Street and Signature are both in the business of acting as custodians and accounting agents for multi-tiered partnership fund financial services. State Street negotiated with Signature for a license to use its patented data processing system described and claimed in the '056 patent. When negotiations broke down, State Street brought a declaratory judgment action asserting invalidity, unenforceability, and noninfringement in Massachusetts district court, and then filed a motion for partial summary judgment of patent invalidity for failure to claim statutory subject matter under § 101. The motion was granted and this appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, we are not bound to give deference to the district court's grant of summary judgment, but must make an independent determination that the standards for summary judgment have been met. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114 (Fed.Cir.1991). Summary judgment is properly granted where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The substantive issue at hand, whether the '056 patent is invalid for failure to claim statutory subject matter under § 101, is a matter of both claim construction and statutory construction. "[W]e review claim construction de novo including any allegedly fact-based questions relating to claim construction." Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., 138 F.3d 1448, 1451, 46 USPQ2d 1169, 1174 (Fed.Cir.1998) (in banc). We also review statutory construction de novo. See Romero v. United States, 38 F.3d 1204, 1207 (Fed.Cir.1994). We hold that declaratory judgment plaintiff State Street was not entitled to the grant of summary judgment of invalidity of the '056 patent under § 101 as a matter of law, because the patent claims are directed to statutory subject matter.

The following facts pertinent to the statutory subject matter issue are either undisputed or represent the version alleged by the nonmovant. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby In determining daily changes, the system also allows for the allocation among the Spokes of the Hub's daily income, expenses, and net realized and unrealized gain or loss, calculating each day's total investments based on the concept of a book capital account. This enables the determination of a true asset value of each Spoke and accurate calculation of allocation ratios between or among the Spokes. The system additionally tracks all the relevant data determined on a daily basis for the Hub and each Spoke, so that aggregate year end income, expenses, and capital gain or loss can be determined for accounting and for tax purposes for the Hub and, as a result, for each publicly traded Spoke.

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The patented invention relates generally to a system that allows an administrator to monitor and record the financial information flow and make all calculations necessary for maintaining a partner fund financial services configuration. As previously mentioned, a partner fund financial services configuration essentially allows several mutual funds, or "Spokes," to pool their investment funds into a single portfolio, or "Hub," allowing for consolidation of, inter alia, the costs of administering the fund combined with the tax advantages of a partnership. In particular, this system provides means for a daily allocation of assets for two or more Spokes that are invested in the same Hub. The system determines the percentage share that each Spoke maintains in the Hub, while taking into consideration daily changes both in the value of the Hub's investment securities and in the concomitant amount of each Spoke's assets.

It is essential that these calculations are quickly and accurately performed. In large part this is required because each Spoke sells shares to the public and the price of those shares is substantially based on the Spoke's percentage interest in the portfolio. In some instances, a mutual fund administrator is required to calculate the value of the shares to the nearest penny within as little as an hour and a half after the market closes. Given the complexity of the calculations, a computer or equivalent device is a virtual necessity to perform the task.

The '056 patent application was filed 11 March 1991. It initially contained six "machine" claims, which incorporated means-plus-function clauses, and six method claims. According to Signature, during prosecution the examiner contemplated a § 101 rejection for failure to claim statutory subject matter. However, upon cancellation of the six method claims, the examiner issued a notice of allowance for the remaining present six claims on appeal. Only claim 1 is an independent claim.

The district court began its analysis by construing the claims to be directed to a process, with each "means" clause merely representing a step in that process. However, "machine" claims having "means" clauses may only be reasonably viewed as process claims if there is no supporting structure in the written description that corresponds to the claimed "means" elements. See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1540-41, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1554 (Fed.Cir.1994) (in banc ). This is not the case now before us.

When independent claim 1 is properly construed in accordance with § 112, p 6, it is directed to a machine, as demonstrated below, where representative claim 1 is set forth, the subject matter in brackets stating the structure the written description discloses as corresponding to the respective "means" recited in the claims.

1. A data processing system for managing a financial services configuration of a portfolio established as a partnership, each partner being one of a plurality of funds, comprising:

(a) computer processor means [a personal computer including a CPU] for processing data;

(b) storage means [a data disk] for storing data on a storage medium;

(c) first means [an arithmetic logic circuit configured to prepare the data disk to magnetically store selected data] for initializing the storage medium;

(d) second means [an arithmetic logic circuit configured to retrieve information from a specific file, calculate incremental increases or decreases based on specific input, allocate the results on a percentage basis, and store the output in a separate file] (e) third means [an arithmetic logic circuit configured to retrieve information from a specific file, calculate incremental increases and decreases based on specific input, allocate the results on a percentage basis and store the output in a separate file] for processing data regarding daily incremental income, expenses, and net realized gain or loss for the portfolio and for allocating such data among each fund;

for processing data regarding assets in the portfolio and each of the funds from a previous day and data regarding increases or decreases in each of the funds, [sic, funds'] assets and for allocating the percentage share that each fund holds in the portfolio;

(f...

To continue reading

Request your trial
219 cases
  • Device Enhancement LLC. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • May 17, 2016
    ...was to declare all computer-based programming unpatentable, 450 U.S. at 219, 101 S.Ct. 1048.10 State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Group, Inc. , 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed.Cir.1998), abrogated by Bilski I , in which "a computer-implemented invention was considered patent-eligible so lon......
  • Smithkline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • April 8, 2005
    ...subject matter under § 101, is a matter of both claim construction and statutory construction." State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368, 1370 (Fed.Cir.1998). Both AT & T and State Street considered scope of patent claims to determine their validity under s......
  • In re Comiskey
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • September 20, 2007
    ...that "[t]he first door which must be opened on the difficult path to patentability is § 101." State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368, 1372 n. 2 (Fed.Cir.1998) (quoting In re Bergy, 596 F.2d 952, 960 (CCPA 1979)). Only if the requirements of § 101 are satisfi......
  • In re Bilski
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • October 30, 2008
    ...construction, which we also review de novo, is an important first step in a § 101 analysis, see State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Group, 149 F.3d 1368, 1370 (Fed.Cir.1998) (noting that whether a claim is invalid under § 101 "is a matter of both claim construction and statutor......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 firm's commentaries
  • Bioinformatics: The New Software Patent Frontier
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • September 27, 2001
    ...Evolve in a Biotechnology Arena," Nat'l. L.J., March 27, 2000, at C8. State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. AT&T v. Excel Communications, Inc. 172 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999). "Other News to Note," BioWorld Today, Aug. 17, 2000, at 3. Se......
  • The Saga Of Patent Eligibility Of Business Methods Continues In SmartGene v. ABL
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • March 25, 2014
    ...unpredictability following the predictable laissez-faire era following State Street Bank & Trust v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. In order to conform to the plurality in the CLS Bank decision, patent prosecutors should draft patent specifications and claims t......
  • Federal Circuit To Consider 'Business Method' Patent Eligibility In En Banc Rehearing
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • February 27, 2008
    ...subject matter in the area of business methods. Indeed, the Court has indicated it might reconsider its landmark 1998 decision in, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998), wherein the Court held there is no "business method" exception to patentable subject The hearing in In re Bilski is set fo......
  • Recent Changes in Patent Eligibility Will Impact the Securities and Banking Industries
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • August 11, 2010
    ...are no strangers to business method patents. The watershed case, State Street Bank & Trust v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998), involved a hub and spoke configuration for pooling assets from mutual funds. Since then, companies have sought to patent all man......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
60 books & journal articles
  • BIG MAC EU Trademark Revoked for Nonuse
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 12-5, May 2020
    • May 5, 2020
    ...principle of nondiscriminatory treatment—on the basis of subject matter, field of invention, and field of technology. n Endnotes 1. 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 2. 561 U.S. 593 (2010). 3. Letter from Scott F. Partridge, Chair, ABA Section of Intellectual Prop. Law, to Andrei Iancu, Under......
  • Examining the Examiner
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 12-5, May 2020
    • May 5, 2020
    ...principle of nondiscriminatory treatment—on the basis of subject matter, field of invention, and field of technology. n Endnotes 1. 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 2. 561 U.S. 593 (2010). 3. Letter from Scott F. Partridge, Chair, ABA Section of Intellectual Prop. Law, to Andrei Iancu, Under......
  • Patent law and the two cultures.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 120 No. 1, October - October 2010
    • October 1, 2010
    ...a highly expansive and formalistic conception of patentable subject matter, essentially equating patent eligibility with utility. 149 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1998). However, at least one Supreme Court Justice expressed discomfort both with the breadth of patentable subject matter embodie......
  • Trade Secrets 2.0: Stepping Up to 21st Century Trade Secret Protection
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 12-5, May 2020
    • May 5, 2020
    ...principle of nondiscriminatory treatment—on the basis of subject matter, field of invention, and field of technology. n Endnotes 1. 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 2. 561 U.S. 593 (2010). 3. Letter from Scott F. Partridge, Chair, ABA Section of Intellectual Prop. Law, to Andrei Iancu, Under......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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