- (‘694 Patent) A method for filtering a packet, including the steps of:
(a) receiving packet having at least one header parameter and a payload;
(b) selecting an access rule based upon the contents of the payload of the packet received in step a;
(c) implementing the access rule for a packet, wherein the access rule is selected based upon a combination of the contents of the packet received in step (a) and the contents of at least one other packet.
- (‘409 Patent) A method of distributing data, the method comprising:
(a) protecting portions of the data; and
(b) openly distributing the protected portions of the data, whereby ( c) each and every access to an unprotected form of the protected portions of the data is limited in accordance with rules defining access rights to the data as enforced by an access mechanism, ( d) so that unauthorized access to the protected portions of the data is not to the unprotected form of the protected portions of the data.
- A method of alerting at least one device in a networked computer system comprising a plurality of devices to an anomaly, at least one of the plurality of devices having a firewall, comprising:
(a) detecting an anomaly in the networked computer system using network-based intrusion detection techniques comprising analyzing data entering into a plurality of hosts, servers, and computer sites in the networked computer system;
(b) determining which of the plurality of devices are anticipated to be affected by the anomaly by using pattern correlations across the plurality of hosts, servers, and computer sites; and
(c) alerting the devices that are anticipated to be affected by the anomaly.
Summary Judgment motion for ineligibility.
Abstract Idea: Yes
“I hold that the ‘694 Patent claims a patent-ineligible abstraction for three reasons. First, the claim of the patent amounts to a mental process. The ‘694 Patent claims a method for filtering a “packet” of information based upon the contents of two or more packets. See Feldman Decl., Exh. Hat 3:9-30.”
“Second, the claim is broad enough to raise concerns of preemption. … The ‘694 Patent is not limited to a particular application but, rather, covers all network filtering by any firewall on any computer network where an access rule is chosen based upon the data of multiple packets. See Feldman Decl., Exh. Hat 2:21-6:33; Markman Order at 11-12. Nor is it limited to a type of packetized information, a defined set of access rules, or particular devices.”
“Finally, the patent fails the ‘machine-or-transformation’ test. The test, although not dispositive, is a ‘useful and important clue’ to subject matter eligibility. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 604. … Claim 1 of the ‘694 Patent fails both prongs. The method is neither limited to a particular machine or apparatus, nor does it result in the transformation or creation of an article. See Feldman Decl., Exh. H. Rather, it claims a process for filtering packages that is implementable by any ‘known firewall’ within a generic computer network.”
Something More: No
“The remaining elements of the ‘694 Patent, considered ‘both individually and as an ordered combination,’ fail to “transform” the abstract idea of the Patent ‘into a patent-eligible invention.’ Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354, 2357. When one looks beyond the abstract idea of selecting an access rule based upon multiple packet payloads, one is left with the steps of ‘receiving a packet having at least one header parameter and a payload’ and ‘implementing the access rule for a packet.’ Feldman Decl., Exh. Hat 6:34-44. The former step merely describes the ‘packetized’ form of information conventionally sent to a firewall. See id, Exh. H at 1: 16- 28. The latter step simply calls for ‘generic computer implementation’ of the process.”