Search Team

Search by Last Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

Klaustech, Inc. v. Admob, Inc.

Representative Claim

  1. A non-scrolling ad display from a website for causing a browser hitting the website to undertake centrally controlled and recorded ad display for guaranteed minimum timed intervals comprising the steps of:

providing a website at a webserver for transmitting at least one page with a non-scrolling ad frame to a browser;

providing ad content for the non-scrolling ad frame, each ad content having ad identity and an individual timer for timing out commencing with display at the browser and an Internet address for fetching by the browser;

providing a central controller interrogating for browser identity and maintaining records associated with the browser identity indicating ad identity displayed, and timer timeout;

placing the ad content in the non-scrolling ad frame of the browser to display the ad content and start the individual timer;

timing out the individual timer of the ad content at the non-scrolling frame at the browser;

reporting from the browser to the central controller the timer timeout of the ad content; and,

retaining in the central controller a record of the browser identity, the ad identity, and the timer timeout of the ad content at the browser.

Posture:

Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [FRCP 12(c)] in view of 35 USC § 101.

Abstract Idea: No

In addition to its general discussion of patent eligibility and abstractness, the court makes note of an important point of law regarding the present procedural posture. Specifically, the court confirms that considerations of Section 101 eligibility pursuant to a motion to dismiss (which is “functionally identical” to a motion for judgment on the pleadings) should be limited to those cases where “the basic character of the claimed subject matter is readily ascertainable from the face of the patent.”

In this case, the court characterized the claimed subject matter as related to a “centrally-located, non-scrolling advertisement display frame on an Internet browser.” In particular, “[t]he claimed system provides real time communication between the central controller and the browser to allow advertisements to be displayed for a set minimum amount of time and to enable the browser to track and control the display.” Significantly, “[t]he patent attempts to address the prevailing problem of advertising on the Internet to control advertising to each web page viewing browser and to monitor accurately the timing of the display, with proof of the advertisement display to the paying advertiser.” Thus, the court found that the claimed solution “employs a new approach . . . to solve technical problems that do not exist in the conventional advertising realm.” Predictably, the court supported its analysis by quoting from DDR Holdings:

“The Court finds that, similar to the holding DDR Holdings, the ‘claims stand apart because they do not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet. Instead the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.’ 773 F.3d at 1257.”