- Epicor Software Corporation v. Protegrity CorporationRehearing deniedPTAB · Apr 19, 2016 · CBM2015-00002 · APJ Kevin F Turner · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied both rehearing requests, leaving the institution of § 101 review of claims 1, 5, 8, 19, 20, and 27–31 and denial of prior art grounds unchanged.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“D. Conclusion We are not persuaded of an abuse of discretion either by Patent Owner or Petitioner. III. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that each Request for Rehearing is denied.” slip op. at 18
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“The Board instituted covered business method patent review of the ’201 Patent based upon the following ground, combined from both proceedings: Ground Prior Art Challenged Claims § 101 n/a 1, 5, 8, 19, 20, and 27–31 Papers 17 and 13 (’02 Decision and ’30 Decision, respectively). The Board did not institute covered business method patent review upon any prior art grounds. See ’02 Decision 6 and ’30 Decision 4–5 (listing grounds proffered by Petitioner).” slip op. at 2
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionDecided for petitioner
“Response, Patent Owner argues that the claims are directed toward protection of data in a database on a more granular level, namely at the data element level. Prelim. Resp. 27 (“the ’201 Patent is not directed to some abstract idea, but rather a specific improvement in computing technologies to protect data in a database at the date element level”). However, the abstract idea we identified is that of “determining whether access to a given data element value in a database should be granted based on whether one or more rules are satisfied.” ’02 Decision 20. See also Pet. 20. As such, the abstract idea goes directly to the concept of protecting data at the data element level.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Although Atalla discloses authorization to a file based on information about the file, Ex. 1007, 3:27–58, Petitioner has not shown that the information about the file is individual data element types. Overall, Atalla addresses accessing files, in part, based on whether the files were previously accessed, but a file in not the same as an individual data element value. The section of Atalla cited in Petitioner’s Rehearing Request discloses the need for a correct key code, but that key code is for the entire file and not specific to the data element type. Pet. Req. 6 (citing Ex. 1007, 3:27–58). Although “information about the file” could include information about individual data element types, Petitioner has not demonstrated any such teaching or suggestion in Atalla. As stated in the ’02 Decision, Atalla “does not describe that access authorization file 15 comprises ‘a data element protection catalogue (DPC), which contains each individual data element type (DT) and one or more protection attributes stating processing rules for data element values’ as requires by claim 1.” ’02 Decision 28. Thus, we are not persuaded by Petitioner that we abused our discretion in denying institution of covered business method patent review of claims 1, 5, 19, 20, and 27–31 over the anticipation ground of Atalla provided in the Petition.” slip op. at 16
§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,321,201 - Epicor Software Corporation v. Protegrity CorporationSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 18, 2016 · CBM2015-00006 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 33–38, 41, 43–52, 55, and 57–60 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 39, 40, 42, 53, 54, and 56 were not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 61–68 were denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“B. Patent Owner’s Request to Cancel Claims 1–32 In the Patent Owner’s Response and the Motion to Amend, Patent Owner requests cancellation of claims 1–32 of the ’281 patent. PO Resp. 2– 3; Mot. Amend 1. Patent Owner’s request to cancel these claims is not contingent on the claims being determined to be unpatentable or on the entry of the proposed substitute claims. Patent Owner’s request to cancel claims 1–32 is granted and we need not address these claims further.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“1998) (citing Bell Commc’ns Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Commc’ns Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 619–20 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). Independent claim 33 recites “[a] computer-implemented data processing method” that includes, among other steps, a step of “maintaining a database comprising a plurality of data portions.” Ex. 1001, 13:38–41. Similarly, independent claim 47 recites “[a] computer system” that includes, among other elements, “a database storing a plurality of data portions.” Id. at 14:47–48. As can be seen from the above, claims 33 and 47 recite that the database comprises or stores data portions. Neither of claims 33 and 47, nor any claims dependent therefrom, recites that the database performs any other function, such as producing a compelling calling to the data protection catalogue to retrieve the data processing rules. See id. at 13:38–16:29. Indeed, unlike the parent ’201 patent, none of the claims of the ’281 patent recite a compelling calling at all. See id.; Ex. 1004, Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate 1:24–51 (amended claim 8). Notably, independent claim 8 of the parent ’201 patent recite an apparatus having a database that stores data to be protected. Ex. 1004, Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate 1:24–51 (amended claim 8). Claim 8 of the parent ’201 patent was amended during reexamination to recite that the apparatus, not the database, controls the user’s processing of the data according to the data processing rules, and the apparatus, not the database, also produces the compelling calling to the data element protection catalogue. Id. at Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate 1:41–51. The words of the claims of the ’281 patent, thus, are consistent with Petitioner’s proposed construction as the broadest reasonable construction.” slip op. at 10
- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“We are persuaded by Petitioner that a preponderance of the evidence shows that at least claim 33 encompasses activities that are financial in nature, incidental to a financial activity, or complementary to a financial activity.” slip op. at 21
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionDecided for petitioner
“Independent claim 33 recites a data processing method that grants access to a requested data portion if the rules associated with a data category that is associated with the requested data portion is satisfied. Ex. 1001, 13:38–54. Claim 33 requires a database that comprises the data portions and requires a separate data protection table comprising data processing rules that must be satisfied before the data portion can be accessed. Id. The data processing rules are associated with the data category. Id. Independent claim 47 recites a corresponding computer system. Id. at 14:47–63. Independent claims 33 and 47, thus, recite a method or system that grants access to a requested data portion if the rules associated with a data category that is associated with the requested data portion are satisfied. Ex. 1001, 13:38–54. Given the above, we are persuaded by Petitioner that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of determining whether access to data should be granted based on whether one or more rules are satisfied. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, because Patent Owner’s argument is based upon elements not required by the claims. See PO Resp. 29–38. Given our construction of “data portion” and “database” in section II (A) above, the claims do not require protection on the data element level based on rules stored in a separate database, where the first database calls out to the second database. Patent Owner’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 8,402,281 mixedClaim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · MayoPatents in suitUS 8,402,281 - Travelers Lloyds Of Texas Insurance Co. / The Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Integrated Claims Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 30, 2016 · CBM2014-00187 · APJ Hyun J Jung · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 27, 30, 36, 42, 43, 45, and 50–52 are unpatentable under § 101; claim 27 is also anticipated by Toy under § 102. The motion to amend is granted.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“Supreme Court clarified the process for analyzing claims to determine whether claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. In Alice, the Supreme Court applied the framework set forth previously in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012), “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If they are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination”’ to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297, 1298). In other words, the second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’––i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). Further, the “prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment’ or adding ‘insignificant post solution activity.”’ Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610– 11 (2010) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.175, 191–92 (1981)).” slip op. at 22
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Board will interpret claims according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b). In our Decision to Institute, we construed “unitary data stream” to mean a “transmitted set of information.” Dec. on Inst. 13. The parties do not present arguments for another interpretation (see Reply 6), and based on the complete record, we do not perceive any reason or evidence that now compels any deviation from this interpretation.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s proposed construction reads a particular embodiment in the Abstract into claim 27, which only requires “a unitary data stream including N fields of data.” See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enter., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.”). “Parsing” does not seem to appear in the specification of the ’020 patent. We thus decline to accept Patent Owner’s proposed construction and give “parsing the unitary data stream” its ordinary and customary meaning.” slip op. at 21
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Patent Owner also proposes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “field” in view of the specification is a “computer software field” with citations to the specification. PO Resp. 15–24 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:32–37, 9:59–10:12, 10:19–35, 11:53–63, 13:40–14:20, 14:29–38, 15:26–47, 16:26– 32, 17:3–11, 18:5–18, 18:50–19:3, 19:61–20:6, 24:19–31, 24:38–43). Petitioner argues that the plain meaning should be applied. Reply 8. We do not see that the dispute impacts the analysis set forth in the Decision, so we need not decide between the two competing proposals. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 7,178,020 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipationcites Alice · Mayo · BilskiPatents in suitUS 7,178,020 - Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 30, 2016 · CBM2015-00017 · APJ Matthew R Clements · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 15, and 31 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract idea without an inventive concept.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“We are persuaded that Exhibit 1202 is offered not for the truth of the matter asserted (i.e., the content of the ’598 patent), but as evidence of how Patent Owner has characterized the ’598 patent. Thus, Patent Owner has not persuaded us that Exhibit 1202 is evidence of the content of a writing or that it is cumulative to the ’598 patent. Furthermore, Patent Owner has not persuaded us that Exhibit 1202 is irrelevant, at least because its characterization of the ’598 patent in prior proceedings is relevant to the credibility of its characterization of the ’598 patent in this proceeding. Patent Owner contends that Exhibit 1202 does not contradict its characterization of the ’598 patent in this proceeding such that the credibility of Patent Owner’s characterization is an issue. Mot. 3. This argument misses the point because the credibility of Patent Owner’s characterization is for the Board to weigh after deciding the threshold issue of admissibility. As Petitioner notes (Opp. 2), Patent Owner’s characterization of the ’598 patent in prior proceedings is relevant to Patent Owner’s contention in this proceeding that the ’598 patent does not satisfy the “financial in nature” requirement for a covered business method patent review (Paper 18 (Preliminary Response), 5–10). Accordingly, we decline to exclude Exhibit 1202.” slip op. at 22
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner has not articulated a persuasive reason for excluding Mr. Wechselberger’s Declaration. Patent Owner has not cited any authority requiring an expert to recite or apply the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in order for the expert opinion to be accorded weight. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d), we apply the preponderance of the evidence standard in determining whether a petitioner has established unpatentability. In doing so, it is within our discretion to determine the appropriate weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, including the weight accorded to expert opinion, based on the disclosure of the underlying facts or data upon which the opinion is based. Our discretion includes determining whether the expert testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods and whether the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. See FRE 702.” slip op. at 25
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“We are persuaded that the challenged claims are drawn to a patent- ineligible abstract idea. Specifically, the challenged claims are directed to performing the fundamental economic practice of conditioning and controlling access to content (claims 1, 2, 15, and 31). For example, claim 1 recites “code for storing at least one content data item in the content data memory and at least one use rule in the use rule memory.” Claim 31 recites “evaluating the use status data using the one or more use rules to determine whether access to the content data item is permitted” and “enabling access to the content data item responsive to a determination that access to the content data item is permitted.”” slip op. at 7
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“The ’598 patent treats as well-known all potentially technical aspects of the challenged claims, which simply require generic computer components (e.g., interfaces, memory, program store, and processor). See Pet. Reply 5–8, 13–14 (citing Ex. 1201, 4:4–5, 16:46–50, 18:7–11). With respect to the “portable data carrier” recited in claim 1, for example, the Specification states it may be a generic device such as “a standard smart card.” Ex. 1201, 11:27–29; see also id. at 14:25–29 (“[l]ikewise data stores 136, 138 and 140 may comprise a single physical data store or may be distributed over a plurality of physical devices and may even be at physically remote locations from processors 128-134 and coupled to these processors via internet 142”), Fig. 6. Further, the claimed computer code performs generic computer functions, such as storing, retrieving, receiving, reading, evaluating, and enabling access to. See Pet. 32–33. The recitation of these generic computer functions is insufficient to confer specificity. See Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known. Indeed, humans have always performed these functions.”). Moreover, we are not persuaded that claims 1, 2, 15, and 31 “recite specific ways of using distinct memories, data types, and use rules that amount to significantly more than” paying for and/or controlling access to content. See PO Resp. 11–12. The challenged claims generically recite several memories, including “content data memory,” “use rule memory,” “a program store,” and “payment data memory,” and generically recite several data types, including “data,” “content data items,” “use rules,” “code,” “payment data,” and “use status data.” We are not persuaded that the recitation of these memories and data types, by itself, amounts to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Patent Owner does not point to any inventive concept in the ’598 patent related to the way these memories or data types are constructed or used. In fact, the ’598 patent simply discloses these memories and data types with no description of the underlying implementation or programming. See Content Extraction and Transmission LLC, 776 F.3d at 1347 (“The concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known. Indeed, humans have always performed these functions.”). This recitation of generic computer memories and data types, being used in the conventional manner, is insufficient to confer the specificity required to elevate the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294) (“We have described step two of this analysis as a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the [ineligible concept] itself.’”) (brackets in original).” slip op. at 10
Patent outcomesUS 8,061,598 unpatentable§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · BilskiPatents in suitUS 8,061,598 - Travelers Lloyds Of Texas Insurance Co. / The Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Integrated Claims Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 30, 2016 · CBM2014-00186 · APJ Hyun J Jung · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1, 6, 10-17, and 28-31 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract idea without an inventive concept.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 6, 10–17, and 28–31 of the ’768 patent are unpatentable. We also grant the motion to amend and deny the motion to dismiss.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“MOTION TO AMEND In its Motion to Amend, Patent Owner moves to amend the ’768 patent by canceling claims 11 and 30. Paper 15, 1; see 35 U.S.C. § 316(d); 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(3) (“A motion to amend may cancel a challenged claim or propose a reasonable number of substitute claims.”). The Motion to Amend does not indicate that Patent Owner’s request to cancel claims 11 and 30 is contingent on the claims being determined to be unpatentable. We, therefore, grant the request.” slip op. at 42
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b). In our Institution Decision, we did not need to construe any term expressly. Patent Owner proposes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “field” in view of the specification is a “computer software field” with citations to the specification and claim 1. PO Resp. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 10:6–10, 12:66–13:38, 15:57–64, 17:62–66, 28:5–21). Petitioner argues that the plain meaning should be applied. Reply 6 (citing Ex. 1007, 8). We do not see that the dispute impacts the analysis set forth in the Decision, so we need not decide between the two competing proposals. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 21
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“Claim 1 requires accepting data, generating a first subset of that data, generating a second subset of that data, and transmitting the first and second subsets of data. Ex. 1001, 45:27–46. We determine that the subject matter of the challenged claims, when considered as a whole, is directed to an abstract idea, namely, examining information to extract relevant portions of that information. In particular, the complete record persuades us that the idea of examining information and extracting relevant portions of that information represents a disembodied, well-known concept, a basic building block of human ingenuity and rises to the level of an abstract idea. See Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Applying Mayo/Alice step one, we agree with the district court that the claims of the asserted patents are drawn to the abstract idea of 1) collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and 3) storing that recognized data in a memory. The concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known. Indeed, humans have always performed these functions.”); see also Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (“in applying the § 101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the ‘“building[g] block[s]”’ of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something more”) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1303).” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,346,768 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · BilskiPatents in suitUS 7,346,768 - Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 29, 2016 · CBM2015-00016 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 6, 8, and 10 are unpatentable under § 101; claim 11 is unpatentable under § 112 ¶ 2; the proceeding is terminated as to claim 1.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner
“B. Related Matters and Termination In a previous covered business method patent review, CBM2014- 00106, we issued a Final Written Decision determining claim 1 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. CBM2014-00106, Paper 52. Because Apple was the petitioner in that proceeding, we found that § 325(e)(1) estops Apple from filing or maintaining a proceeding before the Office with respect to claim 1, i.e., the same claim, in this case. Paper 50 (“Estoppel Order”), 4. We, therefore, ordered Apple not to present argument with respect to the patentability of that claim at the oral hearing on November 9, 2015. Id. at 8.” slip op. at 3
- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“We are persuaded that the particular facts of this proceeding now counsel in favor of termination with respect to claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. Claim 1 of the ’458 patent has been finally cancelled and any decision we might reach in this proceeding regarding the patentability of this claim would be moot and purely advisory. We do not see how the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding (37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b)) would be secured by rendering a final written decision with respect to claim 1.” slip op. at 3
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“We agree that the challenged claims are drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Specifically, the challenged claims are directed to performing the fundamental economic practice of controlling access to content. For example, claim 6 recites “code to evaluate the use status data using the use rules data to determine whether access is permitted to the stored data” and “code to access the stored data when access is permitted.” As discussed above, the ’458 patent discusses addressing recording industry concerns of data pirates offering unauthorized access to widely available compressed audio recordings. Ex. 1201, 1:20–55. The ’458 patent proposes to solve this problem by restricting access to data on a device based upon satisfaction of use rules linked to payment data. Id. at 9:7–25. As Petitioner notes (Pet. 26), the ’458 patent makes clear that the claimed subject matter is directed to paying for data and providing access to data. See Ex. 1201 at 2:20–23 (“This invention is . . . particularly . . . relate[d] to a portable data carrier for storing and paying for data and to computer systems for providing access to data.”). Although the specification discusses data piracy on the Internet (see id. at 1:29–39), the challenged claims are not limited to the Internet. The underlying concept of the challenged claims, particularly when viewed in light of the ’458 patent specification, is controlling access to content, as Petitioner contends. As discussed further below, this is a fundamental economic practice long in existence in commerce. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611. We are, thus, persuaded, based on the ’458 patent specification and the language of the challenged claims, that claims 6, 8, and 10 are directed to an abstract idea. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356 (holding that the concept of intermediated settlement at issue in Alice was an abstract idea); Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (holding the abstract idea at the heart of a system claim to be “generating tasks [based on] rules . . . to be completed upon the occurrence of an event”).” slip op. at 8
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“The specification of the ’458 patent treats as well-known all potentially technical aspects of the claims, which simply require generic computer components (e.g., interfaces, program store, and processor). The linkage of existing hardware devices to supplier-defined access rules appear to be “‘well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294. Further, the claimed computer code simply performs generic computer functions, such as accessing, retrieving, and evaluating data. See Pet. 29–30. The recitation of these generic computer functions is insufficient to confer specificity. See Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known. Indeed, humans have always performed these functions.”). Moreover, we are not persuaded that claims 6, 8, and 10 “recite specific ways of using distinct memories, data types, and use rules that amount to significantly more than” conditioning and controlling access to content based on payment. See PO Resp. 18. The challenged claims do not recite any particular or “distinct memories.” To the extent Patent Owner argues that the claimed “program store” is a memory, Patent Owner does not provide any argument as to how it is constructed or implemented in an unconventional manner. Moreover, the claims recite several generic data types, such as “code,” “use status data,” and “use rules data.” We are not persuaded that the recitation of these data types, by itself, amounts to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Patent Owner does not point to any inventive concept in the ’458 patent related to the way these data types are constructed or used. The recitation of generic data types, being used in the conventional manner, is insufficient to confer the specificity required to elevate the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294) (“We have described step two of this analysis as a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the [ineligible concept] itself.’”) (brackets in original). In addition, the ’458 patent simply recites data types with no description of the underlying implementation or programming that results in these data types. See Content Extraction and Transmission LLC, 776 F.3d at 1347 (“The concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known. Indeed, humans have always performed these functions.”). In addition, because the recited elements can be implemented on a general purpose computer, the challenged claims do not cover a “particular machine.” Pet. 36; see Bilski, 561 U.S. at 604–05 (stating that machine-or-transformation test remains “a useful and important clue” for determining whether an invention is patent eligible). And the challenged claims do not transform an article into a different state or thing. Pet. 36.” slip op. at 10
Patent outcomesUS 8,033,458 unpatentable§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · NautilusPatents in suitUS 8,033,458 - Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon Web Services, LLC v. Personalized Media Communications, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 24, 2016 · IPR2014-01530 · APJ Trenton A Ward · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 6 is unpatentable under § 103 over Higgins and Metcalfe and over Furukawa; the contingent motion to amend with substitute claim 30 is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“implementation of communications systems and controlling these systems (or similar types of systems) through the use of computer technology.” Ex. 1001 ¶ 33. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Samuel H. Russ (“Dr. Russ”) stated that, a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’956 patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in digital electronics, electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, and two to five years of post-degree experience in a similar field. Ex. 2018 ¶ 27. Thus, the parties’ assessments of the level of ordinary skill in the art are roughly equivalent. Based on our review of the ’956 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’956 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant and Patent Owner’s declarant, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. We note that the applied prior art also reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionOther
“instructed that “claims should always be read in light of the specification and teachings in the underlying patent.” PO Resp. 12 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Furthermore, the specification “is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Translogic Tech., 504 F.3d at 1257 (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315). Accordingly, we must construe the term “module” for claim 6 of the ’956 patent in light of the disclosure in the ’956 patent specification regarding “modules.” In accordance with the ’956 patent specification, there are various types of modules, such as program modules, object modules, and data modules; thus, the general term “module” cannot be construed to be limited to one of these types of modules. Patent Owner acknowledges that the ’956 patent specification discloses a “data module” as a type of “module.” PO Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 1003, 248:58–249:30). Patent Owner fails, however, to persuasively explain how the disclosed “data module” would meet its proposed definition of a “module” being “a discrete unit of a larger computer program . . . .” For example, it is unclear how a “data module” containing the “particular cost-of-a-trimmed-pork-belly-unit” (Ex. 1003, 189:4–9) constitutes a discrete unit of larger computer program. Patent Owner fails to cite any disclosure in the specification of the ’956 patent that restricts a “module” to be “a discrete unit of a larger computer program.” Although the specification of the ’956 patent does not limit modules to be a discrete unit of a larger computer program, the specification does disclose that each type of module, including program modules, object modules, and data modules, is executed by a computer to perform a specific function. See Ex. 1003, 186:10–17, 188:35–37, 188:59–61. For example, with respect to one embodiment of the data module, the ’956 patent specification discloses that “[e]xecuting the information of said intermediate generation set causes computer, 73, also to generate a particular associated data module.” Id. at 188:59–61. Similarly, with respect to one embodiment of the object module, the ’956 patent specification discloses that “computer, 73, compiles the information of said instance and places the resulting so-called ‘object module’ at particular memory.” Id. at 188:35–37. Likewise, with respect to one embodiment of the program module, the ’956 patent specification discloses that computer 73 compiles “formula-and-item-of-this-transmission information into a machine language program module; and . . . link[s] said module to other program modules.” Id. at 186:10–17. Accordingly, we are persuaded to modify our initial construction of “module” in the Decision on Institution as “a discrete unit of digital data” (Dec. to Inst. 8) to incorporate being executed by a computer to perform a specific function. Therefore, we construe the term “module,” in view of the specification of the ’956 patent, as “a discrete unit of digital data that is executed and/or processed to perform a specific function.” We note that a discrete unit of digital data can be a set of commands or instructions that can be executed and/or processed to perform a specific function.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“subscriber specific action in respect to said problem or interest.” Petitioner argues that the “recommending” limitation not be assigned patentable weight as printed matter. Pet. 6 (citing In re Huai-Hung Kao, 639 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011) and MPEP § 2111.05). In Kao, the Federal Circuit determined that the printed matter doctrine applied because there was “no functional relationship” between the disputed limitations (Kao, 630 F.3d 1073), but here the “recommending” step in claim 6 requires outputting the “subscriber specific action” in “video, audio, or print.” Therefore, we are not persuaded by Petitioner that the printed matter doctrine is applicable to the “recommending” step in claim 6. Patent Owner argues, regarding this “recommending” step, the term “recommend” should be construed to mean “to suggest a choice or a course of action.” PO Resp. 19.4 In support of its proposal, Patent Owner cites two dictionary definitions of the term “recommend.” PO Resp. 20 (citing Exs. 2006, 2007). The first definition, from Cambridge Dictionaries, defines “recommend” as “to suggest that someone or something would be good or suitable for a particular job or purpose, or to suggest that a particular action should be done.” Ex. 2006, 1. The second definition, from the American College Dictionary, defines “recommend” as “to advise a person, etc. to do something.” Ex. 2007, 3. The specification of the ’956 patent uses the term “recommended” to describe a proposed planting plan for minimum cost and maximum revenue: When accessed, the instructions of said module cause a microcomputer, 205, to analyze any given crop planting plan and generate information of a recommended planting plan and growing method that minimizes the expense of insect and other crop pest damage given maximum revenue. Ex. 1003, 275:11–16. We determine the dictionary definitions of “recommend” comport with the use of that term in the specification ’956 patent and with the ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See In re Translogic Tech, 504 F.3d at 1257. Therefore, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s proposed definition. Accordingly, we construe the claim 6 limitation of “recommending in outputted video, audio, or print subscriber specific action in respect to said problem or interest” to mean “suggesting a 4 We note that claim 6 does not include the term “recommend” but recites “recommending.” choice or a course of action in outputted video, audio, or print subscriber specific action in respect to said problem or interest.”” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“teach the claim 6 step of “generating at least a portion of a module including said selected generally applicable information.” PO Resp. 33. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that the proposed combination fails to teach generating a module that is a “discrete unit of a larger computer program that is executed and/or processed to perform a specific function,” in accordance with Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “module.” Id. As discussed above, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s construction of “module” but construe “module” as “a discrete unit of digital data that is executed and/or processed to perform a specific function.” Petitioner proposes that the generation of an Ethernet packet according to Metcalfe would result in a “module including said selected generally applicable information” to communicate the trade information disclosed in Higgins from a branch computer to a work station. Pet. 28–29 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 75–78, 89, 95– 96; Ex. 1007, 3:1–3; Ex. 1009, 395). Petitioner argues that this packet is generated at the branch computer before it is transmitted to the work stations. Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 94, 96. In view of Higgins’s disclosure of regarding the processing of the trade information, including the stock symbol, prices of the stock, and volume traded (Ex. 1007, 4:45–49, 2:24–47), to generate a price limit alert to be displayed on the work station CRT in Higgins (Ex. 1007, Fig. 2), we determine that Higgins in view of Metcalfe teaches or suggests “generating at least a portion of a module including said selected generally applicable information,” wherein a “module” is construed to mean “a discrete unit of digital data that is executed and/or processed to perform a specific function.”” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 7,864,956 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,864,956 - Viglink, Inc. / Skimlinks, Inc. et al. v. Linkgine, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 16, 2016 · CBM2014-00184 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 are unpatentable under § 101 and § 102(a) over Landau; claim 7 is unpatentable under § 101 but not shown anticipated by Landau.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“The Board interprets claims in an unexpired patent using the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1277–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“We conclude that Congress implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in enacting the AIA.”), cert. granted sub nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 890 (mem.) (2016). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning in view of the specification, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, unless it appears from the specification or the file history that they were used differently by the inventor, in a clear, deliberate, and precise manner. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In instituting trial, we expressly construed the terms “automatic/automatically” to mean “without human intervention.” Dec. 7–8. Neither party specifically addresses or contests this claim construction. Accordingly, we maintain our construction of the terms “automatic/automatically” to mean “without human intervention.”” slip op. at 7
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“We note that the fundamental issue at hand, allocating commissions, can be performed by humans, or with the aid of pencil and paper. See, e.g., Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that the steps of the claims could be performed by a human without the use of a computer in concluding that the claims at issue were drawn to an abstract idea); Tr. 17:16–21. Although we have considered Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary, we see little difference between replacing one character set with another character set to denote the recipient of a commission and the type of fundamental economic practices considered to be abstract ideas in Alice Corp. and Bilski.2 As established by the record, the concept of commissions, as well as the practice of allocating commissions, existed long before the internet. See, e.g., Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1004, 128, 132, 356–57).” slip op. at 11
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“Patent Owner’s argument that the claims are meaningfully limited because they recite steps performed by an intermediate computer is unavailing. PO Resp. 22–23. We are not convinced that reciting a standard computer performing a standard computer operation imposes meaningful limitations on the abstract idea. We agree with Petitioner that the disclosures regarding the technical details of the “intermediary computer” are sparse, and do not make the intermediary computer specialized. Claims do not become patent-eligible under § 101 simply for reciting a known, general purpose computer. Benson, 409 U.S. at 67 (invalidating as patent-ineligible claimed processes that “can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary,” or “can also be performed without a computer”). The Supreme Court rejected a similar argument, determining that “the claims at issue amount to ‘nothing significantly more’ than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement using some unspecified, generic computer.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298).” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Based on Petitioner’s argument and the record before us, we are persuaded that Landau discloses a preferred affiliate code. Landau’s lookup operation determines that the existing affiliate code (Landau’s source Webmaster ID) is present, but recognizes that it is not the preferred affiliate code to complete the transaction. The existing affiliate code (Landau’s source Webmaster ID) is swapped out for the preferred affiliate code (Landau’s target Webmaster ID). The target Webmaster ID is the preferred affiliate code used by Landau to complete the transaction. Use of the word “preferred” to modify the term “affiliate code” indicates that the preferred affiliate code is a different element than existing affiliate code, and is preferred to the existing affiliate code within the affiliate manipulation system. We have not been directed by Patent Owner to any portion of the specification that persuasively indicates otherwise.3 Thus, Landau’s identification of the target Webmaster ID as the preferred alternative affiliate code to the existing affiliate code meets this limitation of the claims.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 7,818,214 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipationcites Alice · MayoPatents in suitUS 7,818,214 - Viglink, Inc. / Skimlinks, Inc. et al. v. Linkgine, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 16, 2016 · CBM2015-00087 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–8 are unpatentable: claims 1–7 are anticipated by Landau, and claims 1–8 are anticipated by Priest.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“which Patent Owner responded (Paper 34) and on which Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 35). Petitioner’s motion seeks to exclude Exhibits 2003 and 2004 as irrelevant. Mot. to Excl. 1–4. The moving party has the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Patent Owner does not cite to Exhibits 2003 and 2004 in its Response, and we do not rely upon Exhibits 2003 and 2004 in our present determination. The Motion to Exclude, therefore, need not be decided as to these Exhibits. Accordingly, the Motion to Exclude is dismissed as to Exhibits 2003 and 2004.” slip op. at 33
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“In instituting trial, we expressly construed the terms “automatic/automatically” to mean “without human intervention.” Dec. 7–8. Neither party specifically addresses or contests this claim construction. Accordingly, we maintain our construction of the terms “automatic/automatically” to mean “without human intervention.” B. Patentability of Claims 1–8 Under 35 U.S.C. § 101” slip op. at 8
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“We note that the fundamental issue at hand, allocating commissions, can be performed by humans, or with the aid of pencil and paper. See, e.g., Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that the steps of the claims could be performed by a human without the use of a computer in concluding that the claims at issue were drawn to an abstract idea); Tr. 17:16–21. Although we have considered Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary, we see little difference between replacing one character set with another character set to denote the recipient of a commission and the type of fundamental economic practices considered to be abstract ideas in Alice Corp. and Bilski.2 As established by the record, the concept of commissions, as well as the practice of allocating commissions, existed long before the internet. See, e.g., Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1004, 128, 132, 356–57).” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 8,027,883 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipationcites Alice · MayoPatents in suitUS 8,027,883 - Viglink, Inc. / Skimlinks, Inc. et al. v. Linkgine, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 16, 2016 · CBM2015-00086 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 1–6 are also anticipated by Landau, but claim 7 was not shown anticipated.
RulingsFinal written decision- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“We note that the fundamental issue at hand, allocating commissions, can be performed by humans, or with the aid of pencil and paper. See, e.g., Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that the steps of the claims could be performed by a human without the use of a computer in concluding that the claims at issue were drawn to an abstract idea); Tr. 17:16–21. Although we have considered Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary, we see little difference between replacing one character set with another character set to denote the recipient of a commission and the type of fundamental economic practices considered to be abstract ideas in Alice Corp. and Bilski.2 As established by the record, the concept of commissions, as well as the practice of allocating commissions, existed long before the internet. See, e.g., Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1004, 128, 132, 356–57).” slip op. at 11
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“Patent Owner’s argument that the claims are meaningfully limited because they recite steps performed by an intermediate computer is unavailing. PO Resp. 22–23. We are not convinced that reciting a standard computer performing a standard computer operation imposes meaningful limitations on the abstract idea. We agree with Petitioner that the disclosures regarding the technical details of the “intermediary computer” are sparse, and do not make the intermediary computer specialized. Claims do not become patent-eligible under § 101 simply for reciting a known, general purpose computer. Benson, 409 U.S. at 67 (invalidating as patent-ineligible claimed processes that “can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary,” or “can also be performed without a computer”). The Supreme Court rejected a similar argument, determining that “the claims at issue amount to ‘nothing significantly more’ than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement using some unspecified, generic computer.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298).” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Based on Petitioner’s argument and the record before us, we are persuaded that Landau discloses a preferred affiliate code. Landau’s lookup operation determines that the existing affiliate code (Landau’s source Webmaster ID) is present, but recognizes that it is not the preferred affiliate code to complete the transaction. The existing affiliate code (Landau’s source Webmaster ID) is swapped out for the preferred affiliate code (Landau’s target Webmaster ID). The target Webmaster ID is the preferred affiliate code used by Landau to complete the transaction. Use of the word “preferred” to modify the term “affiliate code” indicates that the preferred affiliate code is a different element than existing affiliate code, and is preferred to the existing affiliate code within the affiliate manipulation system. We have not been directed by Patent Owner to any portion of the specification that persuasively indicates otherwise.3 Thus, Landau’s identification of the target Webmaster ID as the preferred alternative affiliate code to the existing affiliate code meets this limitation of the claims.” slip op. at 19
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“which Patent Owner responded (Paper 36) and on which Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 37). Petitioner’s motion seeks to exclude Exhibits 2003 and 2004 as irrelevant. Mot. to Excl. 1–4. The moving party has the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Patent Owner does not cite to Exhibits 2003 and 2004 in its Response, and we do not rely upon Exhibits 2003 and 2004 in our present determination. The Motion to Exclude, therefore, need not be decided as to these Exhibits. Accordingly, the Motion to Exclude is dismissed as to Exhibits 2003 and 2004.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 7,818,214 unpatentable§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipationcites Alice · MayoPatents in suitUS 7,818,214
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.