Senior Circuit Judge Issues Split Decision on Patent Eligibility of Claims Directed to Restricting Access to Computer Files

October 26, 2023

Reading Time : 4 min

Senior Circuit Judge Bryson of the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation in the District of Delaware, recently granted-in-part and denied-in-part a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment based on patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The patents are directed to restricting access to computer files. The court found certain claims eligible because they are directed to a problem arising in the realm of computers and they identify a specific improvement in computer capabilities. The court found other claims ineligible because they broadly recite generic steps and results and they were not limited to the technical advancement disclosed in the specification.

KOM Software Inc. v. NetApp, Inc., No. 18-cv-160-WCB (D. Del.).

KOM Software sued NetApp for infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 6,654,864 and 9,361,243. The patents are directed to restricting access to files contained within a computer data storage medium. Specifically, the patents disclose the implementation of a “trap layer” between the application layer and the file system layer of the computer system, which prevents a software application from passing invalid requests to the device drivers and returns an error message. Representative claim 5 of the ʼ864 patent recites a method of (1) providing an indication that one or more file operations is not permitted on a storage medium and (2) restricting access to each file based on that indication, while still allowing access to free space on the storage medium. The court construed representative claim 66 of the ʼ243 patent more narrowly because it expressly recited the use of the disclosed “trap layer” to intercept an attempted operation on the storage medium.

The court analyzed eligibility using the Supreme Court’s two-step Alice framework. In step one, a court determines whether the claims are “directed to a patent-ineligible concept,” such as an abstract idea. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014). If they are, the court proceeds to step two—the search for an “inventive concept”—and considers “the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Lab’ys, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78-79 (2012)).

Judge Bryson identified the following principles for determining whether claims are directed to an abstract idea that most directly apply to the computer-related application in this case: (1) methods of organizing human activity are abstract; (2) courts look to whether the claim recites an improvement in computer technology as opposed to simply using a computer to perform tasks in its ordinary capacity; (3) claims focused on collecting information, analyzing it and displaying results of the analysis are directed to an abstract idea; (4) for method claims, courts have focused on whether the claim is purely functional in nature or is sufficiently concrete or specific to be directed to a patent-eligible process rather than a patent-ineligible result; and (5) the concern that drives the judicial exceptions to patent eligibility is one of preemption—whether according patent protection to the claimed subject matter would have broad preemptive effect on future innovation in the same field.

The ’243 Patent

Addressing Alice step one for the ’243 patent, the court found that the focus of the claimed advance over the prior art is the use of a “trap layer,” which the specification discloses as the principal means for solving problems associated with prior art storage devices, and which is “expressly recited” in the claims. The court concluded that “the claims are plainly directed to an improvement in the functioning of the computer.” The court analogized the claims to those in TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc., 978 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2020), because (1) “the focus of the claimed advance was on a solution to a problem specifically arising the in the realm of … computers,” and (2) the claim was “properly characterized as identifying a specific improvement in computer capabilities …, rather than only claiming a desirable result or function.” The court recognized that the use of functional language in the claims may render the claims broad in scope, but it found that the character of the claims of the ʼ243 patent relates to a specific improvement in computer technology.

The ’864 Patent

Addressing Alice step one for the ’864 patent, the court concluded that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of restricting access to a storage device. The court reasoned that the claims were not limited to the “trap layer” in the specification and, instead, “cover essentially any method of restricting access to a storage device based on particular operations that are not permitted to be performed on the device.” The court found that the claims are directed to a “desirable result or function,” not to a “specific improvement in computer capabilities.”

Addressing Alice step two, the court recognized that patent eligibility can be determined at the pleading stage “only when there are no factual allegations that, taken as true, prevent resolving the eligibility question as a matter of law” and that the question of whether a claim recites an inventive concept is a question of fact. The court found, however, that KOM failed to allege what in the claims constitutes the inventive concept. The court explained that the movant NetApp bears the burden of proof on its motion, but when a defendant contends that the asserted claim lacks a plausible factual basis in the form of an inventive concept, the patent owner is required to respond with “plausible and specific factual allegations that aspects of the claims are inventive,” not just “conclusory allegations of inventiveness.”

KOM argued that the asserted claims “provide improvements over the prior art,” and that “[n]othing in the specification or prosecution history indicates that the combination of these limitations was conventional or well understood in the art.” The court found, however, that these allegations were “entirely conclusory.”

Practice Tip: In the computer arts, Patent Owners should focus the claims on solutions to problems specifically arising in the realm of computers and on improvements in computer capabilities. Patent Owners should avoid describing and claiming the advance over the prior art in purely functional terms in a result-oriented way that amounts to encompassing the abstract solution no matter how implemented. Instead, Patent Owners should describe and claim technical details for tangible components in the claimed system, including how the advance over the prior art is implemented. To overcome a challenge at the pleadings stage, Plaintiffs should include in the complaint allegations concerning the state of the prior art and the specific, unconventional claim limitations that address problems in the prior art.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.