- Ibg LLC / Interactive Brokers LLC et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 7, 2017 · CBM2016-00051 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–36 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of receiving user input and placing a trade order without an inventive concept.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Applying that standard, we interpret the claim terms of the ’374 patent according to their ordinary and customary meaning in the context of the patent’s written description. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for claim terms must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Petitioner proposes constructions for several terms (Pet. 24–27), and Patent Owner does not propose any explicit claim construction. We determine that no term requires explicit construction in order to conduct properly our analysis of the asserted challenge.” slip op. at 6
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“2292–2296 (the eSpeed/CQG Transcripts); Exhibit 2223 (the Electronic Trader Declarants Exhibit); Exhibit 2214 (Animation); Exhibit 2169 ¶¶ 71, 79, 80, 83–86, 92–95, and 100–102 (Confidential Declaration of Christopher Thomas); and Exhibits 2206, 2207, 2415, 2416, 2250, and 2279–2282 (Documents from District Court Cases). Paper 31, 2–10. Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibit 1003 (TSE) and Exhibit 1009 (the transcript of Mr. Kawashima’s testimony). Paper 34, 1. Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence and Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence are dismissed because we do not rely on the Exhibits or portions of the Exhibits addressed by those motions in reaching our Decision. ORDER For the reasons given, it is: ORDERED that claims 1–36 of the ’374 patent are unpatentable; FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence is dismissed; FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence is dismissed; and” slip op. at 23
- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“Patent Owner fails to identify, and we are not apprised of, an inventive concept in the claims. Patent Owner does not allege that a specific claim limitation, or combination of limitations, provides an inventive concept. As explained above, we are persuaded that the claim does not include elements that “transform the nature of the claim” into a “patent-eligible application.” Given the above, we determine that the combination of elements of the claim does not transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. They do not add significantly more to the abstract idea.” slip op. at 22
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionDecided for petitioner
“As noted above, claim 1 only minimally requires collecting and analyzing information and includes no requirement that any of that information is displayed. Even collecting, analyzing, and displaying information, by itself, however, does not remove claims from abstraction. See, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir. 2016). To the extent claim 1 requires a GUI, it does so in the most basic sense, only requiring generic graphical locations that are selectable by a user. Claims that require a GUI are not automatically patent eligible. Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1255–56; Apple, Inc., v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1234 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In both Affinity Labs and Ameranth, the court determined that the claims were not directed to a particular way of programming or designing the software, but instead merely claim the resulting systems, and determined that the claims are not directed to a specific improvement in the way computers operate. Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1260–61; Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241. The same is true here in that the claims are not directed to any particular way of programming or designing software, but merely claim the resulting system and not any specific improvement in the way a computer operates.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 7,904,374 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Mayo · Enfish · Electric PowerPatents in suitUS 7,904,374 - Google Inc. v. Patrick ZuiliAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 5, 2017 · CBM2016-00021 · APJ Jameson Lee · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 6, 10, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 21 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract idea without an inventive concept.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“3. Conclusion Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 6, 10, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 21 are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” slip op. at 40
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“to Petitioner Exhibits 1004, 1005, 1010, 1011, 1013, 1014, 1032, and 1037. Paper 33. None of these exhibits was relied on by Petitioner in support of the sole ground on the basis of which trial was instituted in this proceeding, i.e., subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, or in support of Petitioner’s arguments for establishing the ’667 patent as a covered business method patent eligible for covered business method patent review. Patent Owner in its Reply to Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s renewed Motion to Exclude asserts that the Board’s Decision on Institution did rely on the Declaration of Mr. Gray and that Mr. Gray’s Declaration does refer to Exhibits 1004, 1005, and 1037. Paper 40, 3. Mr. Gray’s Declaration, however, covers many subjects, and the portions of Mr. Gray’s Declaration cited to in the Decision on Institution do not rely on or refer to Exhibits 1004, 1005, 1010, 1011, 1013, 1014, 1032, and 1037. We have not relied on any portion of Exhibits 1004, 1005, 1010, 1011, 1013, 1014, 1032, and 1037, in this Final Written Decision. Those exhibits all relate to an alleged ground of unpatentability over prior art that has not been instituted for trial and also were not referred to by Mr. Gray in connection with his testimony regarding either patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 or whether the ’667 patent is a covered business method patent eligible for covered business method patent review. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Renewed Motion to Exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 40
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner
“We are cognizant that a “pay-per-click system” is expressly recited only in claim 1’s preamble, and that a preamble recitation may not be limiting. “Whether a preamble stating the purpose and context of the invention constitutes a limitation of the claimed process is determined on the facts of each case and in light of the overall form of the claim, and the invention as described in the specification and illuminated in the prosecution history.” Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor Materials Am., Inc., 98 F.3d 1563, 1572–73 (Fed. Cir. 1996). In this instance, the recitation of a “pay-per-click system” in the preamble of claim 1 is limiting, because it is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the subject matter of claim 1. See Symantic Corp. v. Computer Assocs. Int’l Inc., 522 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Catalina Marketing Int’l. v. Coolsavings.Com, 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In the Summary of the Invention section, the Specification states: “This invention improves upon existing pay-per-click arrangements . . . .” Ex. 1001, 1:62–64. The Specification describes no environment for the disclosed invention other than in a “pay-per-click” system. The body of claim 1 specifically recites a step of “detecting fraudulent activity by measuring the duration between clicks by said client to said selected website by examining said code and website information.” Id. at 3:12–15. The “fraudulent activity” referred to in the body of the claim depends on the operations of a pay-per-click system to have meaning. For instance, the potentially fraudulent activity related to the duration between clicks is a problem, because the merchant has an obligation to pay for each click in a pay-per-click system. Also in the Summary of the Invention section, the Specification states that determining if certain clicks are illegitimate “allows the pay-per-click company to more fairly invoice the merchants, thereby preventing fraudulent [overuse].” Id. at 2:1–4. Claim 1 expressly requires the links provided to a client be “associated with a plurality of websites associated with a plurality of merchants.” Id. at 3:2–5. For all of these reasons, we determine that the recitation of “pay-per-click system” in the preamble of claim 1 is limiting. We determine, in particular, that the step in the body of claim 1 for detecting fraudulent activity derives its meaning and significance from being implemented in a pay-per-click system.” slip op. at 14
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“above-noted testimony of Mr. Gray, we agree with Petitioner’s articulation of what constitutes an abstract idea to which the claimed invention is directed, i.e., “detecting fraud based on the time between two requests by the same client.” That articulation is reasonably tied to the claims, and not an over-generalization or over-simplification of the claimed subject matter.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 7,953,667 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Mayo · Bilski · EnfishPatents in suitUS 7,953,667 - Ibg LLC / Interactive Brokers LLC et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Apr 27, 2017 · CBM2015-00179 · APJ Sally C Medley · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 5–7 unpatentable under § 103 and ineligible under § 101.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Analysis A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id.” slip op. at 2
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptDecided for petitioner
“In rendering our Decision, we did not focus on individual claim elements and overlook the claimed combination as a whole as Patent Owner asserts. Req. Reh’g 8–9. Rather, we applied the Supreme Court’s guidance that to be patent eligible, a claim to an otherwise abstract idea must recite additional elements that constitute an inventive concept and that one looks to elements of each claim individually and as an ordered combination. Dec. 26 (citing Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2357 (2014) 4 and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1297–98 (2012). We considered elements of each claim individually and as an ordered combination. Dec. 26–29. And with respect to considering the claimed combination as a whole, we specifically held that “considering all of the elements as an ordered combination, we determine that the combined elements also do not transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application.” Id. at 29 (emphasis added). Thus, Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Decided for petitioner
“unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over TSE2, Togher3, Schott4, and Cooper5. Req. Reh’g 2–8. Essentially, Patent Owner disagrees with our interpretation of claim 5. Id. Claim 5 depends directly from claim 1 and recites “displaying an order icon at a location that corresponds to the desired price level along the price axis, the order icon indicating the user’s order at the electronic exchange.” We did not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation such that the phrase means “an icon indicating to the user that the user has an order at a particular level along the price axis, distinct from other orders at the same level.” Dec. 16. Rather, we explained that claim 5 was broad enough to also cover that when an order is placed by a user,” slip op. at 5
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedNot reached
“Patent Owner also argues that dependent claim 7, which depends from claim 5, is instructive for interpreting claim 5. Req. Reh’g 7. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that claim 7 requires that the order icon indicate the default quantity working at the electronic exchange and that in order for the order icon to indicate the default quantity selected by the user, the order icon must indicate the user’s own order. Id. This argument in connection with construing claim 5 is newly presented and improper for our consideration. We need not and do not consider this newly presented argument. In any event, we observe that Patent Owner has not explained sufficiently, with any supporting evidence, why claim 7 informs a person of ordinary skill in the art that we must read claim 5 as narrowly as Patent Owner proposes.” slip op. at 7
§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · MayoPatents in suitUS 7,533,056 - Google Inc. v. Patrick ZuiliAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 24, 2017 · CBM2016-00008 · APJ Stacey G White · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1, 5, 9, and 11 are unpatentable under § 101 and obvious over IAB 1 and IAB 2; claims 5 and 11 are also obvious over IAB 1, IAB 2, and Laurent.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“a first code on the server side computing device . . . sending said first code to said at least one device over a communication network. PO Resp. 144. According to Patent Owner, Petitioner “inconsistently pointed [] to cookies as constituting a first code,” and Patent Owner alleges that this is insufficient because claim 1 does not discuss cookies. Id. at 146. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner has equated code generation with cookies and that is improper because cookies are used only to store the code after it has been generated. Id. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s analysis. Petitioner’s declarant, Stephen Gray, asserts that “[c]ookies are set by servers that store the cookie in the client. That cookie is then transmitted back from the client to the server upon subsequent accesses by the user to the origin server that set the cookie.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 60. Gray opines that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that “when a user clicks a cookie-enabled website, a cookie is generated on the server and this cookie is stored on the client computer along with all of the information.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 105. We find that this comports with IAB 1’s description of measuring the number of visits to a web site by using a “Unique Cookie with Heuristic.” Ex. 1004, 5. IAB 1’s server stores “a small piece of information with a browser.” Id. IAB 2 notes that “[t]he web server responds to the user browser by checking for an existing cookie and creating one if one does not exist.” Ex. 1005, 27 (emphasis added). As described in the IAB references, cookies are designed to be unique to each browser, or if possible, the cookies should be unique to each user. Ex. 1004, 5, Ex. 1005, 21–22, 27. We find that these disclosures from IAB 1 and IAB 2 would have taught one of ordinary skill in the art the claimed first code.” slip op. at 32
- Skill levelOther
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“analyze patentability using the broadest reasonable construction of the claims in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)). Neither party makes an explicit claim construction argument in the proceeding. See generally PO Resp., Reply. For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 17
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionDecided for petitioner
“Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). Thus, we must determine whether the claims are directed to “longstanding conduct that existed well before the advent of computers and the Internet.” Id. at 1327. What we are presented with is a system for marking the occurrence of two events and making a determination about the validity of the second occurrence based on the time elapsed between occurrences. We find that this is a longstanding business practice as exemplified by Petitioner’s pharmacy example. See Pet. 47. Patent Owner asserts that the ’057 patent is different from the sort of fraud detection that may be performed by a pharmacist because the challenged claims are “able to handle millions of clicks in real time whether from the same or different users.” PO Resp. 90. We do not agree. The claims recite only two data points, a time associated with click one and a time associated with click two. Thus, a pharmacist comparing the dates or times for two prescription requests is performing the same comparison as the one recited in the claims. There is no requirement in the claims that the system be able to handle millions of data points. Further, there is no discussion of the determination being made in real time and to the contrary the specification states that “by observing a metric like the number of clicks for a given period of time, be it a short time or a longer period, such as a day or a week, the system can automatically determine if certain clicks are illegitimate.” Ex. 1001, 2:64‒3:2. In addition, while the claims recite the creation of codes and encoded codes none of this is used by the claimed method to perform its determination. That data merely is sent from one place to another while the system marks the time associated with a click. The only information used in the determination is the time of the two clicks. The claims are not directed to improving the function of the computer or its associated software; instead, they are directed to using a computer to perform a well-known business task. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”). Therefore, we are persuaded that the challenged claims are directed to a longstanding economic task and not to an improvement to the computer functionality itself. Cf. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016). For all of the foregoing reasons, we find that Petitioner has established that claims 1, 5, 9, and 11 are directed to an abstract idea.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 8,671,057 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · EnfishPatents in suitUS 8,671,057 - Ibg LLC / Interactive Brokers LLC et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 3, 2017 · CBM2015-00181 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–28 are patent-ineligible under § 101 and unpatentable under § 103 over TSE, Belden, and Togher.
RulingsFinal written decision- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“3. Abstract Idea “The ‘abstract idea’ step of the inquiry calls upon us to look at the ‘focus of the claimed advance over the prior art’ to determine if the claim’s ‘character as a whole’ is directed to excluded subject matter.” Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). According to Petitioner, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of” slip op. at 23
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptIneligibleUnpatentable
“4. Inventive Concept To be patent eligible, a claim directed to an abstract idea must recite additional elements that constitute an inventive concept. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357. One looks to “[t]he elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297–98). The additional elements must be more than “well-understood, routine, conventional, activity.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298. Petitioner contends that claim 1 does not recite an inventive concept.” slip op. at 30
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“1. TSE Printed Publication Status Petitioner argues that TSE is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). Pet. 11. In support of its showing that TSE qualifies as prior art, Petitioner relies on the November 21, 2005, deposition testimony of Atsushi Kawashima taken during litigation between Patent Owner and a third party, eSpeed, Inc. Id.; Ex. 1010. Whether a document qualifies as a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) is a question of law based on underlying findings of fact. In re Enhanced Sec. Research, LLC, 739 F.3d 1347, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 899 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). The Federal Circuit “has interpreted § 102 broadly, explaining that even relatively obscure documents qualify as prior art so long as the public has a means of accessing them.” Id. (citing Hall, 781 F.2d at 899).” slip op. at 34
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“2. TSE, Belden, and Togher a. Claims 1 and 26 With respect to claims 1 and 26, Petitioner cites TSE as teaching the majority of limitations of the claims. Pet. 64–69. Petitioner cites Belden for the “single action” limitation in the claims, including the “setting” and “sending” via the “single action,” and cites Togher as teaching an order being for a “default quantity.” Id. at 69–73. Petitioner proposes modifying TSE based on the teachings of Belden and Togher. Id. at 62–64. TSE describes a trading system that facilitates trading with an electronic exchange by receiving bid and offer information, displaying it to a user, and accepting and sending bid and offer orders. Ex. 1007, 6–13, 35. A trading terminal displays a GUI for depicting market information on a Board Screen, which is shown in the figure reproduced below (“TSE’s Board Screen”).” slip op. at 43
Patent outcomesUS 7,676,411 unpatentable§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Enfish · Electric PowerPatents in suitUS 7,676,411 - Ibg LLC / Interactive Brokers LLC et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 17, 2017 · CBM2015-00179 · APJ Sally C Medley · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 are unpatentable under § 101 and § 103 over TSE, Togher, Schott, and Cooper, and over Silverman, Togher, Cooper, and Hogan.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenUnpatentable
“The individual elements of the claims do not transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application. They do not add significantly more to the abstract idea or fundamental economic practice. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, the claims simply recite the use of a generic computer with routine and conventional functions. Further, considering all of the elements as an ordered combination, we determine that the combined elements also do not transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application. For all of the above reasons, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that claims 1–15 of the ’056 patent are not directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” slip op. at 29
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“We do not agree with Patent Owner that the term “price axis” requires reading into the claim the additional “clarification” that a list of prices that do not contain gaps in between prices is not a price axis. There is nothing in the claim language itself that describes gaps or how data is arranged along the price axis or what contains a price axis. The passages and figures of the ’056 patent that Patent Owner (and Mr. Thomas) directs attention to are examples or embodiments of what is claimed, and do not indicate that Patent Owner disclaimed or limited price axis to consist of a list of prices that contains gaps in between prices. Moreover, Mr. Thomas’ illustration of what constitutes a price axis is conclusory and not supported by record evidence. Ex. 2169 ¶¶ 41–42. He has not directed attention to any evidence in support of his testimony as to what does and does not constitute a price axis as illustrated in 14 paragraph 41 of his declaration. As pointed out by Petitioner, an axis may be represented by scale breaks or logarithmic scales, and thus, need not retain an order of gaps as Patent Owner and Mr. Thomas contend. Pet. Reply 11–12; Ex. 1058, 103–109. We also have considered Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence that remarks made by the then applicant during prosecution of the application that matured into the ’056 patent amount to an express and clear disclaimer of the meaning for price axis. PO Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1002, 178–179; Ex. 2169 ¶ 39). We are not persuaded by such arguments because the comments made during prosecution have not been shown to amount to a disclaimer of having a price axis without gaps in between prices. For example, Patent Owner directs attention to page 178 of Exhibit 1002 from the prosecution file in support of its disclaimer argument. On that page, however, is quoted language from several lines of the claim with an argument just prior stating that Silverman does not describe an axis of prices and all that is contained in the quoted language. Patent Owner has not explained sufficiently why we should construe such general remarks as a disclaimer. We also have reviewed the remarks made by the then applicant that the applied prior art displayed prices for which orders exist, but do not agree that Patent Owner has shown why such comments amount to a clear disclaimer or disavowal of the scope of the term “price axis.” To disavow claim scope, “the specification or prosecution history [must] make clear that the invention does not include a particular feature.” GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal citation, quotation, and alterations omitted).” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“icon at a location that corresponds to the desired price level along the price axis, the order icon indicating the user’s order at the electronic exchange.” (Emphasis added). Patent Owner argues that an “order icon indicating the user’s order at the electronic exchange” should be interpreted to mean “an icon indicating to the user that the user has an order at a particular level along the price axis, distinct from other orders at the same level.” PO Resp. 9. Petitioner argues that no construction of the phrase is necessary and that Patent Owner’s construction is inconsistent with Figure 3A, which shows the user’s order aggregated with other users. Pet. Reply 12. Petitioner further argues that any icon that indicates a user’s order, whether aggregated with other orders or separate, meets the claim term. Id. We agree with Petitioner. There is nothing in the language of claim 5 that requires indicating the specific user order (separating it out from all other orders) or indicating to the user that it is his order. If an order is placed by a user, resulting in the total quantity of orders placed at that same price to increase, the total number would indicate an increase, and thus, indicate the user’s order. Patent Owner argues that because claim 1 recites bid indicators and offer indicators, an order icon must represent something distinct from the 16 bid/offer indicators. PO Resp. 7–8. But even Patent Owner does not explain why an order icon cannot be one of the offer or bid indicators. Indeed, for the embodiment that Patent Owner directs attention to there is no distinction between offer and bid indicators with order icons (an order icon is one of the indicators). Id. We agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the ’056 patent to use “icons” and “indicators” interchangeably. See, e.g., Pet. 18–20. Thus, we disagree with Patent Owner that the “order icon” of claim 5 cannot be one of the offer or bid indicators. For all of the above reasons, we decline to interpret an “order icon indicating the user’s order at the electronic exchange” to mean “an icon indicating to the user that the user has an order at a particular level along the price axis, distinct from other orders at the same level.”” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“B. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Notwithstanding the parties’ submissions of the level of ordinary skill in the art10, we find that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). 10 The parties’ submissions focus primarily on the degrees, occupations, and experience, as opposed to what the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would have known at the time of the invention. As such, and as the triers of fact, based on the record before us, we do not find such information particularly helpful.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 7,533,056 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Enfish · Electric PowerPatents in suitUS 7,533,056 - Google, Inc. / Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 27, 2017 · CBM2015-00130 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Smartflash’s rehearing request, leaving in place its determination that claims 3–10, 15–31, and 33 are patent-ineligible under § 101.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 3
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Decided for petitioner
“Id. at 13–14 (citing Ex. 1001, 25:59–61 (claim 1), 26:42–67 (claim 15), 27:36–55). But McRO does not stand for the general proposition that use of rules or conditions to achieve an improved technological result, alone, removes claims from the realm of abstract ideas. In McRO, the Court explained that “the claimed improvement [was] allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters’ that previously could only be produced by human animators.” Id. at 1313 (citation omitted). The Court explained that the claimed rules in McRO transformed a traditionally subjective process performed by human artists into a mathematically automated process executed on computers (i.e., the processes were fundamentally different). Id. at 1314. The Court explained that “it [was] the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that ‘improved [the] existing technological process’ by allowing the automation of further tasks.” Id. at 1314 (alteration in original) (quoting Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358 (2014)). The Court distinguished this from situations “where the claimed computer-automated process and the prior method were carried out in the same way.” Id. (citing Parker v. Flook, 437” slip op. at 6
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptDecided for petitioner
“In Amdocs, the Court held that “[claim 1] is eligible under step two because it contains a sufficient ‘inventive concept.’” Amdocs, 841 F.3d at 1300. The claim at issue recited “computer code for using the accounting information with which the first network accounting record is correlated to enhance the first network accounting record.” Id. The Court explained that the “claim entails an unconventional technological solution (enhancing data in a distributed fashion) to a technological problem (massive record flows which previously required massive databases).” Id. The Court noted that, although the solution requires generic computer components, “the claim’s enhancing limitation necessarily requires that these generic components operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality.” Id. at 1300–1301. When determining that the claim was patent-eligible, the Court explained that the “enhancing limitation necessarily involves the arguably generic gatherers, network devices, and other components working in an unconventional distributed fashion to solve a particular technological problem.” Id. at 1301. The Court distinguished the claim from the claim held unpatentable in Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) on the grounds that the “enhancing limitation . . . necessarily incorporates the invention’s distributed architecture—an architecture providing a technological solution to a technological problem,” which “provides the requisite ‘something more’ than the performance of ‘well-” slip op. at 8
§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Bilski · EnfishPatents in suitUS 8,118,221 - Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 27, 2017 · CBM2015-00123 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request and left intact its determination that claims 2–5, 7, 9, and 12 are patent-ineligible under § 101.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“showing unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 326(e). The standard of review for rehearing requests is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which states: The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 3
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionDecided for petitioner
“Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 1001, 26:27–35 (claim 3)). But McRO does not stand for the general proposition that use of rules to achieve an improved technological result, alone, removes claims from the realm of abstract ideas. In McRO, the Court explained that “the claimed improvement [was] allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters’ that previously could only be produced by human animators.” Id. at 1313 (citation omitted). The Court” slip op. at 5
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptDecided for petitioner
“In Amdocs, the Court held that “[claim 1] is eligible under step two because it contains a sufficient ‘inventive concept.’” Amdocs, 841 F.3d at 1300. The claim at issue recited “computer code for using the accounting information with which the first network accounting record is correlated to enhance the first network accounting record.” Id. The Court explained that the “claim entails an unconventional technological solution (enhancing data in a distributed fashion) to a technological problem (massive record flows which previously required massive databases).” Id. The Court noted that, although the solution requires generic computer components, “the claim’s enhancing limitation necessarily requires that these generic components operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality.” Id. at 1300–1301. When determining that the claim was patent-eligible, the Court explained that the “enhancing limitation necessarily involves the arguably generic gatherers, network devices, and other components working in an unconventional distributed fashion to solve a particular technological problem.” Id. at 1301. The Court distinguished the claim from the claim held unpatentable in Content Extraction &” slip op. at 7
§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · EnfishPatents in suitUS 8,033,458 - Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 27, 2017 · CBM2015-00121 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Smartflash’s rehearing request, leaving in place its determination that claims 1–28 are patent-ineligible under § 101.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“showing unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 326(e). The standard of review for rehearing requests is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which states: The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 3
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionDecided for petitioner
“Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 1001, 26:35–37 (claim 1), 28:3–9 (claim 14)). But McRO does not stand for the general proposition that payment validation to achieve an improved technological result, alone, removes claims from the realm of abstract ideas. In McRO, the Court explained that “the claimed improvement [was] allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters’ that previously could only be produced by human animators.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313 (citation omitted). The Court explained that the claimed rules in McRO transformed a traditionally subjective process performed by human artists into a mathematically automated process executed on computers (i.e., the processes were fundamentally different). Id. at 1314. The Court” slip op. at 5
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptDecided for petitioner
“because it contains a sufficient ‘inventive concept.’” Amdocs, 841 F.3d at 1300. The claim at issue recited “computer code for using the accounting information with which the first network accounting record is correlated to enhance the first network accounting record.” Id. The Court explained that the “claim entails an unconventional technological solution (enhancing data in a distributed fashion) to a technological problem (massive record flows which previously required massive databases).” Id. The Court noted that, although the solution requires generic computer components, “the claim’s enhancing limitation necessarily requires that these generic components operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality.” Id. at 1300–1301. When determining that the claim was patent-eligible, the Court explained that the “enhancing limitation necessarily involves the arguably generic gatherers, network devices, and other components working in an unconventional distributed fashion to solve a particular technological problem.” Id. at 1301. The Court distinguished the claim from the claim held unpatentable in Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) on the grounds that the “enhancing limitation . . . necessarily 7 This is the only instance where one of Patent Owner’s papers is cited in the Request. incorporates the invention’s distributed architecture—an architecture providing a technological solution to a technological problem,” which “provides the requisite ‘something more’ than the performance of ‘well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.’” Id. (citations omitted). We are not persuaded that we misapprehended Amdocs. As noted in our Final Decision, “[t]he ’516 patent treats as well-known all potentially technical aspects of the challenged claims, which simply require generic computer components.” Final Dec. 15. Unlike the generic components at issue in Amdocs, the generic components recited in claims 1–28 of the ’516 patent do not operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality. See Final Dec. 20–22. Claims 1– 28 of the ’516 patent simply recite generic memories, processors, and “code to” perform well-known functions with no description of the underlying implementation or programming.” slip op. at 7
§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Bilski · EnfishPatents in suitUS 8,794,516 - Apple Inc. / Google, Inc. v. Smartflash LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 27, 2017 · CBM2015-00133 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request and left intact its determination that challenged claims 2–4, 6, 7, 9, 11–13, 15–18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27–29, 31, and 33–36 are patent-ineligible under § 101.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“showing unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 326(e). The standard of review for rehearing requests is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which states: The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 4
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionDecided for petitioner
“Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 1001, 26:35–37 (claim 1)). But McRO does not stand for the general proposition that use of rules or conditions to achieve an improved technological result, alone, removes claims from the realm of abstract ideas. In McRO, the Court explained that “the claimed improvement [was] allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters’ that previously could only be produced by human animators.” Id. at 1313 (citation omitted). The Court explained that the claimed rules in McRO transformed a traditionally subjective process performed by human artists into a mathematically automated process executed on computers (i.e., the processes were fundamentally different). Id. at 1314. The Court explained 7 Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016). that “it [was] the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that ‘improved [the] existing technological process’ by allowing the automation of further tasks.” Id. at 1314 (alteration in original) (quoting Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358 (2014)). The Court distinguished this from situations “where the claimed computer-automated process and the prior method were carried out in the same way.” Id. (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 585–86 (1978); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356)). As explained in our Final Decision, the challenged claims “merely implement an old practice in a new environment.” Final Dec. 12–13 (quoting FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The challenged claims are similar to the claims found ineligible in FairWarning, which the Court distinguished from those at issue McRO. FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1094–95. In FairWarning, the Court explained that “[t]he claimed rules ask . . . the same questions . . . that humans in analogous situations . . . have asked for decades, if not centuries” and that it is the “incorporation of a computer, not the claimed rule, that purportedly ‘improve[s] [the] existing technological process.’” Id. at 1095 (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358). This is similar to the challenged claims, where the “payment validation data” in claim 2, for example, is merely a condition for “enabl[ing] access to . . . multimedia content” that the ’772 patent explains “will normally be dependent upon payments made for data stored on the data carrier” (i.e., allowing access when the data has been purchased). Ex. 1001, 9:28–30.” slip op. at 6
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptDecided for petitioner
“In Amdocs, the Court held that “[claim 1] is eligible under step two because it contains a sufficient ‘inventive concept.’” Amdocs, 841 F.3d at 1300. The claim at issue recited “computer code for using the accounting information with which the first network accounting record is correlated to enhance the first network accounting record.” Id. The Court explained that the “claim entails an unconventional technological solution (enhancing data in a distributed fashion) to a technological problem (massive record flows which previously required massive databases).” Id. The Court noted that, although the solution requires generic computer components, “the claim’s enhancing limitation necessarily requires that these generic components operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality.” Id. at 1300–1301. When determining that the claim was patent-eligible, the Court explained that the “enhancing limitation necessarily involves the arguably generic gatherers, network devices, and other components working in an unconventional distributed fashion to solve a particular technological problem.” Id. at 1301. The Court distinguished the claim from the claim held unpatentable in Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) on the grounds that the “enhancing limitation . . . necessarily incorporates the invention’s distributed architecture—an architecture providing a technological solution to a technological problem,” which 8 This is the only instance where one of Patent Owner’s papers is cited in the Request. “provides the requisite ‘something more’ than the performance of ‘well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.’” Id. (citations omitted). We are not persuaded that we misapprehended Amdocs. As noted in our Final Decision, “[t]he ’772 patent treats as well-known all potentially technical aspects of the challenged claims, which simply require generic computer components.” Final Dec. 15. Unlike the generic components at issue in Amdocs, the generic components recited in claims 2–4, 6, 7, 9, 11– 13, 15–18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27–29, 31, and 33–36 of the ’772 patent do not operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality. See Final Dec. 20–24. Claims 2–5, 7, 9, and 12 of the ’772 patent simply recite generic memories and data types with no description of the underlying implementation or programming.” slip op. at 8
§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Bilski · EnfishPatents in suitUS 8,336,772
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.