Blog March 23, 2020
Software Claim Addressing Concepts Long Known in Other Fields and Lacking Other Inventive Concept Is Not Patent Eligible
- Person title
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., ___F.3d ___ (Fed. Cir. July 6, 2015) (DYK, Reyna, Chen) (E.D. Va.: Trenga) (5 of 5 stars)
Federal Circuit affirms judgment that two patents' claims were unpatentable under § 101, and affirms a third patent's claim construction (and the resulting noninfringement judgment).
The first patent's claims were to a method of determining if a user has reached a pre-set spending limit and notifying them if so. Under the first step of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), these claims recited an abstract idea because they addressed the basic concept of budgeting. Under Alice's second step, the claims contained no inventive concept because they merely recited performance of generic computer tasks to apply the idea and the calculations could be done with pencil and paper.
The second patent's claims were to customizing web pages "as a function of navigation history and information known about the user." Slip op. at 10. Under Alice's first step, this addressed an abstract idea because it would cover "a fundamental practice long prevalent in our system." Id. at 11 (quoting Alice). Tailoring information based on customer characteristics (e.g., the customer's location) is an abstract idea seen, for example, in the tailoring of newspaper inserts. Similarly, tailoring based on the time of day (which Intellectual Ventures did not dispute was a species of "navigation data") is another abstract idea, as such techniques have long been used to tailor television advertising. Under Alice's second step, the claims had no inventive concept to support patent eligibility, as they did no more than add computer functionality. Though Intellectual Ventures contended that the claims required potentially-inventive "real time" presentation of data, the claims recited no such limitation. A claimed "interactive interface" also did not confer patent eligibility, as it addressed merely a generic web server. Thus, the claims addressed patent-ineligible subject matter. Unlike DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), where the claims "provided an Internet-based solution to solve a problem unique to the Internet that (1) did not foreclose other ways of solving the problem, and (2) recited a specific series of steps that resulted in a departure from the routine and conventional sequence of events after the click of a hyperlink advertisement," the claims here "do not address problems unique to the Internet, so DDR has no applicability." Slip op. at 15.
The third patent was to a method of organizing digital images that came from hard copy prints. The claim required scanning prints grouped into categories, "each category separated by an associated machine readable instruction form." This phrase required forms in a hard-copy format, for three reasons. First, the claim language itself suggested physical separation of the prints with the forms. Second, the specification consistently described the form as a hard-copy document. Though there was a reference in the specification to providing users with the form "via HTML," the description later described printing that form to hard-copy. Third, during prosecution the applicant described the scanning step as "clearly a physical step." Under that construction, the plaintiff had stipulated to noninfringement.
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 November 4, 2019
Legal Alert | Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. — What Did the Federal Circuit Do?
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 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 December 1, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: November 2023
Blog November 27, 2023
Minnesota Patent Litigation Wrap-Up: Q3 2023
Blog November 15, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: October 2023
Blog November 9, 2023
Legal Alert: FTC Challenges More Than 100 Patents as Improperly Listed in Orange Book
Blog November 3, 2023
District of Delaware Finds Allergan Patents Invalid for Lack of Written Description and Obviousness-Type Double Patenting in Allergan v. MSN Labs
Blog October 31, 2023
Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: October 2023
Blog October 30, 2023
District of Delaware Finds Non-Orange Book-Listed Patents Subject to the Same Pleading Standard as Listed Patents in ANDA Infringement Suit
Blog October 11, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: September 2023
Blog September 25, 2023
Federal Circuit Evaluates Enablement for Antibody Claims for the First Time Since Amgen v. Sanofi in Baxalta Inc. et al. v. Genentech, Inc.
Blog September 7, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: August 2023