Litigation Strategies For Insurance Patents.
I. Core Litigation Strategies for Insurance Patents
1. Winning (or Surviving) Section 101 Early
Most insurance patent cases rise or fall on patent eligibility. Defendants almost always file:
Rule 12(b)(6) motions (early dismissal)
Summary judgment on §101
Strategic goal:
Defendant: Kill the case before discovery.
Patentee: Frame the invention as a technical solution, not a pricing, underwriting, or risk-pooling idea.
2. Claim Drafting and Construction Strategy
Insurance patents fail when claims:
Track human decision-making
Merely automate actuarial logic
Use generic computer language
In litigation:
Patentees push narrow, system-level constructions
Defendants push functional, result-oriented constructions
Claim construction often decides §101.
3. Technical Characterization
Successful patentees:
Emphasize data structures, network architecture, processing steps
Show improvements to computer functionality, not business efficiency
Unsuccessful ones:
Focus on better pricing, risk management, or compliance
4. Use of Factual Disputes (Berkheimer Strategy)
After Berkheimer:
Patentees argue that whether something is “well-understood, routine, and conventional” is a fact question
Defendants argue the patent itself admits conventionality
5. Venue and Forum Strategy
Insurance patent disputes often:
Favor PTAB (IPR) for §102/§103
Favor district courts for §101 dismissal
II. Detailed Case Laws (More Than Five)
1. Bilski v. Kappos (2010)
Background
The patent claimed a method for hedging risk in energy markets, conceptually similar to insurance risk hedging.
Court’s Holding
The claims were abstract ideas
Risk hedging was a fundamental economic practice
Merely limiting the idea to a field (energy or insurance) does not save it
Litigation Impact on Insurance Patents
Insurance risk pooling and hedging are treated as ancient economic practices
Any patent centered on:
Risk mitigation
Loss spreading
Pricing volatility
is immediately suspect
Strategic Lesson
If your insurance patent looks like:
“Collect data → analyze risk → adjust premiums”
you are starting litigation on extremely thin ice.
2. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (2014)
Background
The patent involved intermediated settlement, a financial risk-reduction technique.
Two-Step Test Created
Is the claim directed to an abstract idea?
If yes, does it add an inventive concept?
Why This Is Fatal for Insurance Patents
Insurance patents almost always:
Involve intermediated transactions
Use generic computing components
Litigation Consequence
After Alice:
Courts became comfortable dismissing insurance cases before discovery
Plaintiffs must plead technical detail in the complaint
Strategic Lesson
You cannot argue:
“It’s abstract, but useful.”
Usefulness is irrelevant under Alice.
3. Bancorp Services v. Sun Life Assurance (Federal Circuit)
Background
The patent covered managing life insurance policies using computer systems to track values and risks.
Court’s Holding
Managing insurance policies is an abstract idea
Computers were used only as calculators and record-keepers
No inventive concept beyond standard accounting functions
Why This Case Is Crucial
This is one of the most directly insurance-focused cases.
Key Language Used by the Court
“Computer implementation does not rescue an otherwise abstract idea.”
“The claims merely use a computer to perform routine calculations.”
Litigation Strategy Impact
Defendants cite Bancorp to argue:
Insurance administration ≠ technological innovation
Policy management is inherently abstract
4. State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group (1998)
Background
The patent covered a hub-and-spoke system for mutual fund accounting, closely related to financial and insurance fund management.
Initial Holding
Allowed business method patents
Introduced the “useful, concrete, and tangible result” test
Why It Matters Today (Even Though Overruled)
While later overturned by Bilski and Alice, plaintiffs still cite it historically to argue:
Financial systems can be patentable if technologically implemented
Litigation Reality
Courts now treat State Street as:
A cautionary tale
A reason business method patents exploded and then collapsed
5. buySAFE v. Google (Federal Circuit)
Background
The patent involved guaranteeing transactions—conceptually similar to insurance underwriting.
Court’s Holding
Guaranteeing performance is an abstract contractual concept
Generic computers do not add an inventive concept
Insurance-Specific Relevance
Insurance guarantees:
Payment upon contingency
Performance assurance
Risk transfer
All fall under buySAFE logic.
Litigation Strategy Takeaway
If your patent:
Guarantees outcomes
Insures against failure
Monetizes risk
expect heavy reliance on buySAFE by defendants.
6. SAP America v. InvestPic (Federal Circuit)
Background
The patent related to financial modeling and risk analysis.
Court’s Holding
Advanced mathematics ≠ inventive concept
Improved accuracy does not equal technological improvement
Why This Hits Insurance Patents Hard
Insurance patents often argue:
Better actuarial accuracy
More precise loss predictions
Courts say:
Accuracy improvements alone are abstract.
7. Berkheimer v. HP (Federal Circuit)
Background
Concerned data storage efficiency.
Important Holding
Whether something is:
“Well-understood, routine, and conventional”
is a question of fact
How Insurance Plaintiffs Use This
Plaintiffs argue:
Their risk models were unconventional
Industry did not previously use these systems
How Defendants Counter
Patent specification admits conventional components
Actuarial methods are historically well-known
III. Practical Litigation Playbook
For Insurance Patent Owners
Anchor claims in system architecture
Avoid underwriting logic in the independent claims
Use expert declarations early
For Defendants (Insurers & Tech Firms)
Push early §101 dismissal
Emphasize historical insurance practices
Frame claims as automation of human judgment
IV. Bottom Line
Insurance patents are litigated defensively, not offensively.
Most successful strategies focus on:
Early dismissal
Narrow claim construction
Recasting “innovation” as “automation”
RELATED Blog
comments