the firm's post-grant practitioners are some of the most experienced in the country.

J. Derek  Mason, Ph.D., CLP
Robert T. Pous
Sameer  Gokhale
Derek  Lightner, Ph.D.
John  Sipos
Christopher  Ricciuti
Brian B. Darville
Daniel J. Pereira, Ph.D.
Teddy S. Gron
Alec M. Royka
Stefan Uwe  Koschmieder, Ph.D.
Robert W. Downs
Edwin D. Garlepp
Diane  Jones
Eckhard H. Kuesters
Kasumi  Kanetaka
John S. Kern
Kevin Ross  Davis
Christopher I. Donahue
Jeffrey B. McIntyre
Grace E. Kim
Marina I. Miller, Ph.D.
Yuanyi (Alex) Zhang, Ph.D.
Aldo  Martinez
Robert  Tarcu
Elissa L. Sanford
Chika (Teranishi) Iitoyo
Jianping (James)  Wu
Tia D. Fenton
Long  Phan, Ph.D.
Kurt M. Berger, Ph.D.
Akihiro  Yamazaki
Bogdan A. Zinchenko
David M. Longo, Ph.D.
Philippe J.C. Signore, Ph.D.
Tao  Feng, Ph.D.
Kevin M. McKinley
Nicholas  Rosa, Ph.D.
Yuki  Onoe
Jenchieh (Joseph) Yuan
Thomas M. Cunningham, Ph.D.
Steven B. Chang
James R. Love
Norman F. Oblon
Eric W. Schweibenz
Ryan W. Smith
Stephen G. Baxter, Ph.D.
Richard D. Kelly
Arthur I. Neustadt
Jay E. Rowe, Jr., Ph.D.
Carl E. Schlier
Craig R. Feinberg
Yorikatsu  Hohokabe, Ph.D.
Alexander B. Englehart
Frank J. West
Colin B. Harris
Andrew M. Ollis
Kevin L. Hartman, Ph.D.
Dale M. Shaw
Charles L. Gholz


Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Digital Health
Digital Health
Energy & Renewables
Energy & Renewables

Fast Facts

About Our

Law Firm

About Our Law Firm

Headquartered within steps of the USPTO with an affiliate office in Tokyo, Oblon is one of the largest law firms in the United States focused exclusively on intellectual property law.

Get to know our


Get to know our History

Norman Oblon with Stanley Fisher and Marvin Spivak launched what was to become Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP, one of the nation's leading full-service intellectual property law firms.

Our Local and

Global Reach

Our Local and Global Reach

Outside the US, we service companies based in Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia, and farther corners of the world. Our culturally aware attorneys speak many languages, including Japanese, French, German, Mandarin, Korean, Russian, Arabic, Farsi, Chinese.

A few of our


A few of our ACCOLADES

Oblon's professionals provide industry-leading IP legal services to many of the world's most admired innovators and brands.




From the minute you walk through our doors, you'll become a valuable part of a team that fosters a culture of innovation, client service and collegiality.

A few ways to

GET In Touch

A few ways to GET In Touch
US Office

Telephone: 703-413-3000
Learn More +

Tokyo Office

Telephone: +81-3-6212-0550
Learn More +


Patent Forms

Downloadable Patent Forms

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued final rules implementing the inventor's oath or declaration provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA) on August 14, 2012.

The Ongoing Patent Dispute Over Innovative ML-Based Pattern Recognition

  • April 18, 2022
  • Article

Associated People

Associated Technologies

Support Vector Machine-Recursive Feature Elimination (SVM-RFE) is a technology which can be used to find relevant patterns in a large data set such as the data generated in the sequencing of genomes and produce smaller subsets. In Health Discovery Corp. v. Intel Corp.[1], the patent owner HDC, in its complaint for infringement, discussed the innovative aspects of the technology:

Support Vector Machine — Recursive Feature Elimination (“SVM-RFE”) is an application of SVM that was invented by Dr. Weston and Dr. Guyon as members of HDC’s science team, to find discriminate relationships within clinical datasets, as well as within gene expression and proteomic datasets created from micro-arrays of tumor versus normal tissues. In general, SVMs identify patterns — for instance, a biomarker/genetic expression signature of a disease. The SVM-RFE utilizes this pattern recognition capability to identify, rank and order the features that contribute most to the desired results, and successively eliminate the features with the lowest rank order, until the optimal feature set is obtained to define the model.

However, Judge Albright, in his December 27, 2021 opinion, stated that the patent claim reciting the pattern recognition method would “merely improve or ‘enhance’ an abstract idea”[2] and satisfy Alice step one, meaning it is directed to judicial exception of abstract idea. 

Judge Albright analyzed whether the claim is directed to a “specific means or method that improves [that] relevant technology.”[3]  The claim would be found eligible in the Alice step one if it is directed to “improvements to the functioning of a computer or network.”[4]  However, looking at representative claim 1 (below) of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,188 (the 188 patent), Judge Albright stated that “the claims here merely produce data with improved quality relative to that produced by conventional mathematical methods.”[5]  The “relevant technology” that is improved is an abstract, mathematical method, and the improvement is not tied to the “physical,”[6] which was the distinction over the cases such as McRO where the improvement was “allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters.’”[7]

            1. A computer-implemented method for identifying patterns in data,

the method comprising:

            (a) inputting into at least one support vector machine of a plurality

of support vector machines a training set having known outcomes,

the at least one support vector machine comprising a decision

function having a plurality of weights, each having a weight value,

wherein the training set comprises features corresponding to the data

and wherein each feature has a corresponding weight;

            (b) optimizing the plurality of weights so that classifier error is


            (c) computing ranking criteria using the optimized plurality of


            (d) eliminating at least one feature corresponding to the smallest

ranking criterion;

            (e) repeating steps (a) through (d) for a plurality of iterations until a

subset of features of pre-determined size remains; and

            (f) inputting into the at least one support vector machine a live set

of data wherein the features within the live set are selected according to the subset of features.

The Alice step two did not save the claim, either, as the inventive concept was lacking.  Judge Albright cited Stanford II that decided as follows[8]:

That a specific or different combination of mathematical steps yields more accurate [data] than previously achievable under the prior art is not enough to transform the abstract idea in claim 1 into a patent eligible application.

In other words, the claim did not have enough to move “the claims out of the realm of abstract ideas.”[9]

Based on Judge Albright’s analysis in Alice step one, the claim should have been drafted to involve improvement tied to something physical, not improvement in an abstract idea itself or a mathematical method.  In the Alice step one analysis, as noted above, Judge Albright ultimately found the facts of the case analogous to those of Stanford II and SAP, and stated “In Stanford IISAP, and the instant Action, the patents' written description characterizes conventional systems as invoking mathematical analyses that the claimed inventions merely improve.”[10]  Judge Albright also found the present facts different than those of McRO[11] and Thales,[12] which were found to have improvements tied to the “physical.” As stated by the Court “McRO's invention was directed to the display of “animated characters on screens for viewing by human eyes…In Thales, the invention used mathematics to improve a “physical tracking system.” [13]

Perhaps most significant to this particular field of AI is that the Court believes that the field of SVM-RFE itself is a mathematical concept.[14]   While this is a District Court level ruling, if this case ends up before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), it should put all AI-based pattern recognition developers on alert. 

We will follow this case closely as it continues its way through the courts.  Just last week, HDC refiled its infringement lawsuit against Intel since the dismissal in the instant case was without prejudice.[15]  HDC had appealed this case to the CAFC on February 4th, but it appears that they have voluntary dismissed the appeal in light of the refiled lawsuit. 

[1] Health Discovery Corp. v. Intel Corp., Case No. 6:20-cv-00666-ADA (W.D. Tex. 2021).

[2] Opinion (Document 66) at 21.

[3] McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

[4] Opinion at 9.

[5] Id. at 21.

[6] Id. at 14.

[7] McRO at 1313.

[8] In re Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 991 F.3d 1245, 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (Stanford II).

[9] SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

[10] Opinion at 19

[11] McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.837 F.3d 1299, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016)

[12] Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017)

[13] Opinion at13

[14] Id. at  21