Software Patent Protection

Software innovations often blend code, data, and functionality in ways that create powerful, commercially valuable results. With over 15 years of experience drafting and prosecuting software patents, Michael Priddy understands how to capture the inventive logic behind your code and translate it into clear, defensible patent claims.

His work spans a broad range of software technologies, including:

• Database management
• Mobile and cloud-based applications
• Artificial intelligence and machine learning systems
• Financial and fintech software
• Medical and diagnostic algorithms
• Cybersecurity and encryption systems

When you work with MP Patents, you gain a partner who can bridge the technical and legal aspects of software innovation. Michael develops a strategic patent approach to help you secure protection ensuring your invention is properly positioned under USPTO software patent standards.

Explore our patent portfolio for examples of recently granted patents.

Software patents present unique challenges: abstract ideas, subject-matter eligibility, and rapid innovation cycles. With a deep technical background and years of experience navigating Section 101 and Alice rejections, Michael Priddy knows how to structure claims that meet patentability requirements and stand up to examiner scrutiny.

He identifies patentable elements within your system architecture, user interface, or data-processing methods, often spotting opportunities others overlook. Every application is carefully drafted to cover the inventive function at its core while preserving flexibility for future product evolution.

Our Software Patent Services Include

• Prior art searches and software patentability evaluations
• Drafting and filing U.S. Utility Patent applications
• Drafting and filing U.S. Design Patent applications for UI/UX
• Responding to USPTO examiner rejections and office actions
• International filings and PCT applications for global coverage
• Software portfolio management and competitor analysis

The USPTO uses a two-part test to evaluate patent eligibility under Section 101:

Step 1 – Is the claim directed to a judicial exception?

• Is it an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?

Step 2 – Does the claim add “significantly more”?

• Does it include an inventive concept that transforms it into a patent-eligible application?
• This could be a specific technical improvement (e.g., faster encryption method, reduced bandwidth usage) or a novel computer architecture.

If both steps fail, the USPTO issues a Section 101/Alice rejection.

This is where skilled patent drafting becomes critical. Michael Priddy may be able to help you overcome Section 101/Alice rejections by:

• Focusing on technical improvements — describing how the invention improves computer functionality or network security, not just what it does.
• Including detailed system architecture — components, data flows, and specific operations that make the invention concrete.
• Avoiding overly abstract language — avoiding terms like “module,” “engine,” or “processor” without structure or purpose.
• Using examples and test results to show a measurable technical effect.
• Referencing USPTO guidance and precedents (e.g., Enfish, McRO, DDR Holdings) where similar claims were deemed patentable.

For more guidance on the patent process, see our Patent FAQ.