An Outlook on the Blockchain Patent Arms Race
Companies are pursuing blockchain-related patents in hopes of tapping in to what's expected to become a multibillion dollar industry over the coming years.
September 12, 2018 at 10:00 AM
7 minute read
With all the hype surrounding Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, there has been a surge of patent applications relating to blockchain—one of the technologies underlying Bitcoin. To many, blockchain is seen as the next disruptive technology, with applications not only in the financial sector but also across a surprisingly broad range of seemingly unrelated industries. The result is a patent arms race, with companies pursuing blockchain-related patents in hopes of tapping in to what's expected to become a multibillion dollar industry over the coming years.
|What Is a Blockchain?
Originally invented for the Bitcoin cryptocurrency, a blockchain is a public, decentralized and secure digital ledger used to record transactions between parties. Instead of being stored in a central database, each computer node of a peer-to-peer network maintains its own copy of the blockchain. When a new transaction is requested, the transaction is propagated throughout the network, where each node independently validates the transaction, combines the transaction with other transactions into a block, and broadcasts the block to the other nodes in the network. If there is a consensus among the nodes validating the transaction, the block is cryptographically linked to the last block of the blockchain to securely and permanently record the transaction. The process of validating and adding transactions to the blockchain for cryptocurrencies is referred to as “mining.” Due to the decentralized nature of the blockchain, no single entity needs to be relied upon to manage the transactions.
Many companies are beginning to recognize the value of blockchain technology beyond cryptocurrencies. Blockchain technology can be used in any industry that has a need for securely recording transactions. Some interesting applications of blockchain technology that have been proposed include managing copyrights in digital music distribution, implementing digital identifications, tracking the origin of diamonds and precious metals, and securing electronic voting platforms.
|The Patent Rush
Similar to what was seen with e-commerce patents during the early days of the World Wide Web, we are now seeing a rush to file blockchain-related patent applications. This is not surprising, as patents are seen as critical in protecting business operations and securing investments.
According to data retrieved from U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) databases, the number of blockchain-related patent applications filed in the U.S. has increased exponentially in recent years. A keyword search for patent applications containing the term “blockchain” filed with the USPTO reveals that 382 patent applications were published in 2017—up from 90 in 2016, 24 in 2015, and two in 2014. When considering the 18-month delay from when a patent application is filed to when the USPTO publishes the application, it is likely that there are a significant number of recently filed, but yet unreported, blockchain-related patent applications currently in the pipeline.
A similar upward trend can be found in the number of blockchain-related patents issued by the USPTO, where 36 patents relating to blockchain were issued in 2017—up from 10 in 2016, five in 2015, and zero in 2014.
Because of its roots in the cryptocurrency space, it is easy to see the application of blockchain technology to the financial services industry. This is reflected in the number of blockchain-related U.S. patent applications filed by financial service firms, with companies such as Bank of America, MasterCard and TD Bank among the top filers. It is also not surprising that technology companies, such as IBM and Intel, are an equally significant group of filers.
But what may be more interesting is that many non-technology companies are pursuing blockchain-related patents for applications beyond financial services. For example, Walmart recently filed U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0181909 for monitoring retail item distribution using blockchain technology. Live Nation Entertainment recently obtained U.S. Patent No. 9,792,742 for electronic ticketing access control using blockchain technology. Skuchain recently obtained U.S. Patent No. 9,641,338 for tracking products at various stages of a supply chain using blockchain technology.
|Challenges in Obtaining Blockchain-Related Patents
To obtain a patent, an invention must be novel, non-obvious, useful and directed to patent-eligible subject matter. Of these patentability requirements, patent eligibility is likely to be the major hurdle in obtaining blockchain-related patents due to the Supreme Court's 2014 ruling in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, which states that inventions directed to abstract ideas that are merely carried out by generic computers are not patent-eligible. The Supreme Court, however, declined to define what an abstract idea is, and the Federal Circuit—which has subject matter jurisdiction over patent-related cases—has provided little clarity. This has resulted in a sharp decline in the number of patents issued by the USPTO, particularly for patent applications relating to financial services. To be sure, the Federal Circuit has found that inventions directed to specific improvements in computer capabilities are not abstract ideas and are patent-eligible.
Therefore, to increase the chances of the USPTO finding the subject matter of the invention patent-eligible, it is critical that blockchain-related patent applications be drafted with an emphasis on the technical features of blockchain—such as the distributed peer-to-peer network and the cryptographically linked blocks—while downplaying any business or financial features.
|Other Forms of Protection
Patents are the most popular method for protecting an invention, as they provide their owners exclusive rights. However, patent protection generally expires 20 years from the application's filing and requires disclosure of the invention to the public. On the other hand, an invention can be protected as a trade secret, which may seem like an appealing option to avoid the uncertainty surrounding patent eligibility. However, while a trade secret lasts as long as the invention remains a secret, it will not prevent a competitor from reverse engineering the invention or another inventor from independently inventing the invention. Trade secret protection is also lost once the trade secret is disclosed, even if the disclosure is a breach of a confidential obligation.
In deciding whether to pursue protection of an invention as a patent or a trade secret, careful consideration must be given to various factors which weigh in favor of one form of protection or the other—including the ease of reverse engineering the trade secret, how long protection is needed and the costs to obtain a patent or maintain a trade secret.
|Patent Enforcement
Even if an invention is patented, there are challenges that may arise in enforcing the patent. By design, blockchain technology is distributed and decentralized across a peer-to-peer network of computer nodes. This may result in divided infringement, where no single party infringes each element of the invention. This may also result in extraterritorial infringement, where one or more elements of the invention are performed by computer nodes located outside of the U.S. Both divided infringement and extraterritorial infringement complicate the enforcement of a U.S. patent.
Blockchain-related patents may also be vulnerable to invalidity challenges, particularly in view of the uncertainty surrounding patent eligibility. Such invalidity challenges may be brought before a district court or as a post-grant review before the USPTO. Regardless of the venue, invalidity challenges are expensive, generally costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more.
Many applications of blockchain technology are developed from computer programs distributed under an open-source license, which may complicate the ability to enforce a blockchain-related patent. An open-source license generally allows anyone to view, use and modify the source code of a computer program as long as they in turn allow others to do the same for their derivative work, thereby promoting open collaboration. The terms of use of any open-source source code used to develop blockchain technology should be reviewed carefully to evaluate its impact on the ability to enforce a patent.
While there have been no known lawsuits attempting to enforce a blockchain-related patent, given the increase in patent application filings and the money at stake, we expect this to change in the coming years.
Weinick is a member with Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi in West Orange, and serves as co-chair of the firm's Intellectual Property Group. Cheng is an associate with CSG's Intellectual Property Group. Both are registered patent attorneys.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All$113K Sanction Award to Law Firm at Stake: NJ Supreme Court Will Consider 'Unsettled Law' Frivolous Litigation Question
4 minute readWhich Outside Law Firms Are Irreplaceable, and Which Should Have Gotten the Ax Years Ago?
4 minute readLargest Law Firms: New Jersey and Firmwide Attorney Count
Trending Stories
- 1How Amy Harris Leverages Diversity to Give UMB Financial a Competitive Edge
- 2Pa. Judicial Nominee Advances While Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden Picks
- 3The Unraveling of Sean Combs: How Legislation from the #MeToo Movement Brought Diddy Down
- 4Publication of Information Regarding Client Matters
- 5The State of Cost Recovery — Post COVID
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250