Go (en)fish: Drawing Cad Files from the Patent Eligibility Pool

In the near future, the Federal Circuit will grapple with the subject matter eligibility, under § 101 of the Patent Act, of Computer Aided Design (CAD) files—software that powers 3D printers and contains the design prototype a printer additively manufactures. Where the Federal Circuit comes down on whether or not CAD files are patent-eligible will have serious innovation and economic policy implications. This paper analyzes CAD files’ patent eligibility by uniquely employing two model claims—one for a 3D printed boomerang and the other 3D printed electronic circuitry with increased computing power—to assess how courts today would likely interpret draft substantive claims. Section 101 jurisprudence has been in a state of flux following the Supreme Court’s pivotal decision in Alice Corp v. CLS Bank Int’l, which in extending Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Collaborative Labs.’s nebulous two-step subject matter eligibility test to all classes of patents, led to the invalidation of hundreds of software patents. However, recently the Federal Circuit has struck a 1 Andrew Schreiber is an intellectual property law clerk and a recent graduate of Georgetown University Law Center, J.D. 2017. I would like to thank Professor John R. Thomas for pushing me to pursue patent law and allowing me to take six hours of Monday classes with him. I am also grateful for Andrew Wilhelm’s precision editing and endless patience for substantive questions and e-mail snafus. All of the views and errors expressed in this piece are my own. I would also like to thank all of the staff and the editorial team at IDEA: The Journal of the Franklin Pierce Center for IP for their sharp eyes, thoughtful edits, and hard work. 2 IDEA ! The Journal of the Franklin Pierce Center for Intellectual Property !" #$%& ' ()*'+, better-defined patent-eligibility equilibrium in a string of cases beginning with Enfish v. Microsoft. This paper builds on both the § 101 and 3D printing scholarship by !"#$%&'()'*%+ ,$'," ."!"()/ 0*(12*'3& 4)'"%'-eligibility equilibrium has taken root following Enfish, and how additive manufacturing innovators and patent practitioners can rely on these judicial determinations in crafting CAD 5*/" !"&*+% 4($'$'64"&7 8% '," 5)1" $5 '," ."!"()/ 0*(12*'3& ensuing patent-eligibility determination9a decision that will have far-reaching ramifications for 3D printing and unforetold future software formats9this paper charts a definitive path towards reliability in 3D printing software eligibility. CONTENTS Abstract ...............................................................................