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

Inventor Holdings V. Bed Bath & Beyond

Representative Claim

8. A method of processing a payment for a purchase of goods, comprising the steps of:

receiving at a point-of-sale system a code relating to a purchase of goods;

determining if said code relates to a local order or to a remote order from a remote seller;

if said code relates to a remote order, then

determining a price for said remote order,

receiving a payment for said remote order, and

transmitting to said remote seller data indicating that said payment has been received for said remote order.

25. A method for a remote seller to process a payment for the sale of goods, comprising the steps of:

receiving a remote order for a purchase of goods from a customer;

generating a code and a purchase price for said remote order;

transmitting said code and said purchase price to the customer;

providing order data for use by a point-of-sale system of a local seller in receiving a payment for said remote order;

receiving payment data confirming said payment has been received at said point-of-sale system of said local seller;

initiating, responsive to said payment data, a shipment of said goods; and

receiving a payment for said remote order from said local seller

41. A method [for] submitting a payment for a purchase of goods, comprising the steps of:

transmitting an order for goods to a remote merchant;

receiving a code and a purchase price for said order from said remote merchant;

providing at least one of said code and said purchase price for use by a point-of-sale system of a local seller in processing a payment for said order;

submitting said payment to said local seller at said point-of-sale system; and

receiving said goods from said remote merchant.

Posture:

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in No. 1:14-cv-00448-GMS, Judge Gregory M. Sleet.

Abstract Idea: Yes

The Federal Circuit confirmed the district court’s Step One determination that “the asserted claims are directed to the abstract idea of ‘local processing of payments for remotely purchased goods.’” In explanation, the opinion states:

“Under Alice, the claims of the ’582 patent are manifestly directed to an abstract idea, which the district court accurately described as ‘local processing of payments for remotely purchased goods.’ . . . The idea that a customer may pay for items ordered from a remote seller at a third-party’s local establishment is the type of fundamental business practice that, when implemented using generic computer technology, is not patent eligible under Alice. 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Le Roy v. Tatham, 55 U.S. 156, 175 (1852) (‘A principle, in the abstract, is a fundamental truth; an original cause; a motive; these cannot be patented, as no one can claim in either of them an exclusive right.’)). As we explained in Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the abstract idea exception to patent eligibility disallows the patenting of ‘basic concept[s],’ such as ‘processing information through a clearinghouse,’ because no entity is entitled to ‘wholly preempt’ such concepts.”