Cooley has pulled off a patent coup on behalf of defense contractor Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC)

The law firm defeated a Section 101 patent eligibility motion on Friday, beating the U.S. government in the process.

The feds argued that SAIC is trying to monopolize a broad range of techniques for improving heads-up displays on night vision goggles. Cooley says the technology, pioneered by a retired brigadier general, is saving lives on the battlefield and that SAIC deserves to be compensated for it.

Judge Eric Bruggink of the Court of Federal Claims sided with Cooley. “The Federal Circuit has admonished that, just because the claims involve an abstract idea does not mean that they are directed to an abstract idea,” Bruggink wrote in Science Applications International v. United States.

Cooley partner DeAnna Allen argued the motion earlier this month. Partners Christopher Campbell and Doublas Lobel were also part of Cooley's team.

➤➤ Get IP news and commentary straight to your in-box with Skilled in the Art by Scott Graham. Learn more and sign up here.

The four patents, primarily the 7,787,012 and the 9,229,230, describe systems and methods of integrating the fields of view from a night vision component and a weapon sight, so that soldiers can fire accurately without having to raise their goggles and reacquire the target through the weapon scope.

SAIC alleges it held private demonstrations with the Army between 2005 and 2007 and confidentially collaborated with two suppliers of thermal weapon sights, BAE Systems and DRS Technologies Inc. Now BAE and DRS are providing the government with goggle systems without paying SAIC, the company claims.

The government argued that SAIC's patents broadly claim “the idea of superimposing a video image in a location on a display.” The patents themselves state that the technology can be used “in a myriad of settings” ranging from law enforcement to surgery to astronomy, the government points out. “The claims lack the necessary specificity to avoid the pre-emption concerns that underlie the abstract idea exception to patentability,” the government argued.

But Bruggink agreed with Cooley that the claims don't stop at the superimposing of images. Rather, they “combine existing computer technology, sensors, and calculations in an unconventional way” to achieve more accurate images. That is not an abstract idea, the judge concluded.

Cooley and Bruggink relied in large measure on another Court of Federal Claims decision that went against the government, Thales Visionix v. United States. That decision, affirmed last year by the Federal Circuit, also involved heads-up displays, only these were mounted in fighter jet pilot helmets.

“The Federal Circuit in ThalesVisionix relied on the principle that known techniques or components may be included in a claim when used in an unconventional way to acquire a new and useful result,” Bruggink wrote.