Blog November 4, 2019
Scanner-Enabled Claims to Document Scanning and Storage Not Patent Eligible
- Person title
Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., ___F.3d ___ (Fed. Cir. Dec. 23, 2014) (Dyk, Taranto, CHEN) (D.N.J.: Shipp) (5 of 5 stars)
Federal Circuit affirms Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of infringement case due to § 101 invalidity of all claims, and dismissal of related tortious interference and RICO counterclaims.
Patent-Ineligibility: Applying the two-step test of Mayo and Alice, CET's patent claims (1) were drawn to abstract ideas, and (2) did not represent patent-eligible applications of those ideas. In general, CET's claims were method claims with three steps: extracting data using, e.g., a scanner; recognizing information in the extracted data; and storing that information in a memory. For step one of the Mayo/Alice inquiry, the Federal Circuit held that each of these was an abstract idea that was well-known, noting that humans "have always performed these functions." Op. at 7. While humans are not generally able to transform paper documents into digital files, the use of a computer and scanner did not make the claims less abstract.
In step two of the Mayo/Alice inquiry, CET's claims did not incorporate any "inventive concept" in using computers and scanners to practice the methods by relying on "existing scanning and processing technology." Id. at 9. The district court did not err in basing its judgment on two independent claims that it deemed representative of the 242 claims in CET's four asserted patents, as CET did not object to the claims' representativeness or cite other claims that might be patent-eligible. Additional limitations in various dependent claims recited "well-known, routine, and conventional functions of scanners and computers." Id. at 11. The district court also did not err in dismissing CET's infringement claims at the pleading stage without formal claim construction, because it construed terms in the manner most favorable to CET, and full claim construction is not a prerequisite to determining patent eligibility under § 101.
Tortious interference and RICO counterclaims: CET's infringement claims did not amount to sham litigation, and the district court did not err in dismissing tortious interference and RICO counterclaims under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. CET's suit was not objectively baseless, particularly considering the "deeply uncertain" state of the law surrounding § 101 at the time of CET's complaints against Diebold's customers. The Federal Circuit expressed skepticism that the filing of a lawsuit, even a frivolous one, could be "extortion" sufficient to support a RICO claim. Op. at 12 n.2.
The opinions expressed are those of the authors on the date noted above and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fish & Richardson P.C., any other of its lawyers, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This post is for general information purposes only and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed.
Blog August 17, 2018
En Banc Federal Circuit: Patentee's Service of Complaint, Followed by Voluntary Dismissal, Triggers IPR Clock
Blog October 5, 2017
Legal Alert: Federal Circuit Faults PTO's Approach to Claim Amendments During IPR, But Allows PTO to Try to Fix the Problem
Blog May 16, 2016
Software Claims Directed to Specific Improvements in Computer Operations May be "Non-Abstract"
Blog May 2, 2016
Corporate Residence Definition in Patent Cases Unchanged by Congressional Revisions to Venue Statute; Minimum Contacts Under Beverly Hills Fan Reaffirmed
Blog April 11, 2016
Claims Directed to Detection of Gene Variants Patent-Ineligible, Notwithstanding Mental Activity Requirement
Blog July 27, 2015
Judicial Review Available for Decision that a Patent Qualified for CBM Review; § 101 Review Appropriate in CBM Review
Blog July 8, 2015
Software Claim Addressing Concepts Long Known in Other Fields and Lacking Other Inventive Concept Is Not Patent Eligible
Blog June 18, 2015
Ordered Method Claim Does Not Bar Partly-Simultaneous Performance of Steps
Blog June 17, 2015
Claims Covering Basic Detection of Naturally-Occurring Compound, However Scientifically Significant, Not Patent Eligible
Blog February 10, 2023
President Biden Signs "Protecting American Intellectual Property Act of 2022" Into Law
Blog February 7, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: January 2023
Article January 4, 2023
Attorneys Daniel Tishman and Joshua Rosefelt Author "ITC Year in Review" Article in IPWatchdog
Blog January 4, 2023
Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: December 2022
Blog January 3, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: December 2022
Article December 9, 2022
Attorneys Adam Shartzer and Josh Carrigan Author Law360 Expert Analysis "Patent Fee-Shifting Often Leaves Prevailing Parties Unpaid"
Blog December 9, 2022
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: November 2022
Blog November 1, 2022
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: October 2022
Article October 20, 2022
Life Sciences Entrepreneur Sourcebook | Intellectual Property: What It Is and Why You Should Care
Article October 12, 2022