• SAP America, Inc. v. Lakshmi ArunachalamAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2017 · CBM2016-00081 · APJ Kevin F Turner · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 20 and 21 are unpatentable under § 101 and § 103; the motion to amend proposing claims 22–49 is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that “[b]ased on the technologies disclosed in the ’506 patent, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have had the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree or higher in computer science or computer engineering, as well as at least 3–5 years of academic or industry experience in the relevant field.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 22). Although Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in its Patent Owner’s Response, Patent Owner does opine about the same in its Motion to Amend. Therein, Patent Owner argues that: a person of ordinary skill in the art in 1995 would have been a person who had a degree in computer science, or the equivalent of that degree, and some substantive experience with Web technologies then being developed and considered by persons then working on internet systems. [Ex. 2006, 23] It would have been very rare to find anyone to have had a computer degree and as much as three to five years of experience in the area of Web technology as of November 1995. (Id.) Mot. Amend 5–6. Based on the positions of Petitioner and Patent Owner, we find mostly agreement as to the level of skill of such ordinarily skilled artisans and we are persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had the equivalent of a degree in computer science or computer engineering, as well as some substantive experience 29 with Web technologies then being developed and considered by persons then working on Internet systems. This level of skill is considered and applied in the grounds below.” slip op. at 29

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionNo construction neededOther

    “networked object,” and that we “willfully left out ‘Individual’ and only construed ‘Network Object.’” PO Resp. 36. Patent Owner is correct that we did not construe “individual networked object.” The reason is that it is not a term recited in the challenged claims, nor claim 14, from which the challenged claims depend. We construed “networked object,” i.e., without “individual,” because it is a term recited in the claims. Patent Owner also argues that the proper construction of “networked object” is “the information entries and attributes in a DOLSIB [distributed on-line service information base].” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 8:50–54). We do not agree. Although the specification of the ’506 Patent details that “[t]he networked object identity 11 identifies the information entries and attributes in the DOLSIB as individual networked objects,” that is not a definition of “network objects.” We continue to find that the broadest reasonable construction, in view of the specification, of “networked object” is “an object that operates within a network or transmitted over a network.” We are not persuaded that “individual networked object” need be construed because it is not a claim term, and we are not persuaded that every recitation of “networked object” must refer to an “individual networked object.” Patent Owner argues that we did not construe the claim term “attributes,” which should be understood as “characteristics of an object.” Id. at 36–37 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:45–58, 23:19–25). Petitioner counters that the passages cited by Patent Owner do not support the proffered definition, because those passages do not contain the word “attribute.” Pet. Reply 4. Although Patent Owner’s construction is not unreasonable, claim 14 already recites that the step of “associating an object identity with information entries and attributes,” so that “attributes” need not be referred to as “characteristics of an object,” since such an association is already directly recited in the claims. As such, we are not persuaded that the claim term “attributes” needs explicit construction. Similarly, Patent Owner argues that “information entries” should be construed as “values of the characteristics of an object.” PO Resp. 37 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:45–58, 23:19–25). Again, we find it unnecessary to tie “information entries” to an object, since the association is already provided 12 in claim 14. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the claim term “information entries” needs explicit construction. With respect to the claim term “virtual information store,” we construed that term as “an information store in which information entries and attributes are associated with a networked object identity,” as discussed above. Patent Owner argues that we have not given proper effect to the word “virtual,” arguing that the proper construction is “a transient information store that is temporarily created and which contains information entries and attributes associated with a networked object identity.” PO Resp. 39–41. Patent Owner cites to the specification of the ’506 Patent (Ex. 1001, 3:1–5, 8:47–54), and “[t]he IBM Computer Dictionary” (id.), but, as Petitioner points out, Patent Owner has not “submitted this dictionary as an exhibit or provided any further information to locate the dictionary.” Further, the sections of the ’506 Patent cited by Patent Owner are not explicit about the store being “transient” or “temporarily created;” this is an inference drawn by Patent Owner. See PO Resp. 40. The introduction of the terms “transient” and “temporarily” to the construction adds more ambiguity to the claim term because the specification of the ’506 Patent does not discuss how long any “virtual information store” would be stored or maintained. In addition, we are not persuaded that Patent Owner’s provision of affirmatively containing the information entries and attributes is necessary because having a store in which the information entries and attributes are associated with a networked object identity would have been understood by ordinarily skilled artisans as being a store containing those elements. 13 Therefore, we are not persuaded that the claim term “virtual information store” requires a different construction and we maintain the construction provided in the Institution Decision, which is reproduced above.” slip op. at 11

  • BurdenUnpatentable

    “not have been obvious to make any changes to Lawlor’s system,” and that “the whole purpose of Lawlor is to establish a system built upon an existing software and infrastructure that would require no changes.” PO Resp. 80–81 (emphasis in original). We do not agree. We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner misinterprets Lawlor’s teachings, “improperly concluding that Lawlor teaches away from any combination or modification.” Pet. Reply 24 (emphasis in original). Lawlor explains that “[b]ecause the central computer interacts with the user's bank as a standard POS or ATM network node, no significant software changes are required at the banks’ computers,” demonstrating that Lawlor makes use of a standard ATM network and existing external systems without significant modification. Ex. 1004, Abstr. As explained by Dr. Sirbu, incorporation of techniques described in CORBA into Lawlor’s system would not require modification to the external systems of Lawlor or additional processing at the central computer of Lawlor. Ex. 1002 ¶ 72. Lawlor system does not restrict or disparage modification, and Patent Owner has not pointed out any portion that purportedly restricts or disparages modification. Patent Owner also argues that Lawlor does not disclose “an OSI Layer 7 application layer switch as is the VAN Switch in FIG. 5B.” PO Resp. 79. As discussed above, however, challenged claims 20 and 21 do not recite a VAN switch, and the only consideration of such a switch comes from Patent Owner’s claims constructions that we do not adopt. As such, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a 45 preponderance of the evidence that claim 20 is unpatentable over the combination of Lawlor and CORBA, and that the subject matter of claim 21 is unpatentable over the combination of Lawlor, CORBA and Billings.” slip op. at 45

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “2. 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(i) Rule 221(a)(2)(i) requires that the amendments in a motion to amend must respond to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial. Patent Owner’s new claims do not respond to any ground of unpatentability in the trial. Those grounds are based on 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 103 and directed at claims 20 and 21. Pet. 28–73. Both claims 20 and 21 depend on claim 14 and the grounds of unpatentability consider all of the elements of claim 14. Thus, for example, new claim 25, which recites “[t]he apparatus of claim 14, wherein the user device is a multi-media device,” does not purport to demonstrate that such a claim brings the subject matter into the scope of § 101, nor that such a multi-media device would not be obvious over Lawlor, CORBA, and Billings. See Mot. Amend 9–17. Patent Owner’s analysis addresses claims 22–49 as a group and does not address all of the elements of the new claims. Id. Patent Owner also fails to indicate if any of the new claims include any feature of the challenged claims. For at least these reasons, we find that Patent Owner has not complied with the substantive requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(i). 3. 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(ii) and 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3) Rule 221(a)(2)(i) requires that the amendment may not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent. We also note that this rule is fully supported by 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3), which details that “[a]n amendment under this subsection may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent.” Patent Owner appears to take this rule as merely requiring that “the new claims do not enlarge the scope of any of the old claims.” Mot. Amend 3. 52 The “old claims,” however, are the only two claims existing in the ’506 Patent, namely claims 20 and 21. They are the “scope of the claims of the patent,” and the scope cannot refer to any claim that might have existed during the prosecution of the ’506 Patent. See Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., 345 F.3d 1318, 1329–30 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Therefore, we look to the scope of claims 20 and 21 to determine the scope of the claims of a patent. Proposed new claims in the Motion to Amend improperly enlarge the scope of claims 20 and 21. For example, new claim 27 recites “[t]he apparatus of claim 14, wherein the service is configurable specific to the context of a Web merchant.” This proposed claim is broader, in at least one aspect, than claims 20 and 21, which also depend from claim 14, because it contains none of the elements of claims 20 and 21, although it adds an additional element, i.e., “the service is configurable specific to the context of a Web merchant.” For at least these reasons, we find that Patent Owner has not complied with the substantive requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(ii) or 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3). 4. § 42.221(a)(3) and 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(1)(B) Section (a)(3) of Rule 221 discusses that a patent owner must propose a reasonable number of substitute claims, and goes on to discuss that “[t]he presumption is that only one substitute claim would be needed to replace each challenged claim, and it may be rebutted by a demonstration of need.” The claims subject to the instant proceeding are claims 20 and 21, such that the normal presumption would be for the inclusion of two substitute claims. 53 Patent Owner does not address why the proposed 28 claims are a reasonable number of substitutes for the 2 challenged claims, so Patent Owner cannot be said to have rebutted the one for one presumption by any demonstration of need. We also note that this rule is fully supported by 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(1)(B), which details that for the amendment of a patent, for each challenged claim, “a reasonable number of substitute claims” must be proposed. Petitioner points out that the meaning of “reasonable number of substitute claims” has been previously addressed by the Board, providing “in the absence of special circumstance, a challenged claim can be replaced by only one claim, and a motion to amend should, for each proposed substitute claim, specifically identify the challenged claim which it is intended to replace.” Opp. 1–2 (citing Idle Free at 5). Furthermore, as Petitioner addresses, Patent Owner has failed to identify which of the challenged claims are intended to be replaced by the new claims. Id. Patent Owner’s response appears to be that “PO does not propose a reasonable number of substitute claims, because it is not necessary.” PO Reply 2. This, however, is not responsive. For at least these reasons, we find that Patent Owner has not complied with the substantive requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(3) or the statutory requirements of § 326(d)(1)(B). 5. 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(b)(1) Rule 221(b)(1) requires that a motion to amend must show the changes clearly and set for the support in the original disclosure of the patent for claim that is added. In the case of new claims 22–49, Patent Owner does 54 not indicate any changes from the claims subject to the present proceeding. The claims are indicated as being new, so that no changes from the pending claims are discussed at all. See Claim App’x. In addition, Patent Owner argues that written description support for the new claims can be found in a chart provided in a reexamination of the patent. Mot. Amend 3 (citing inter partes Reexamination Control No. 95/001,129). We note that such incorporation by reference is not permitted under our rules. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). As well, as Petitioner points out, Patent Owner has not demonstrated that the claims provided in the chart are the same as the new claims. Opp. 4. Given this deficit, Patent Owner cannot successfully meet the regulatory requirements under 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a) or (b)(1) regarding written description support, based on the present record. Additionally, Patent Owner has failed to provide any mapping of the new claims to those old claims, and, as Petitioner points out, the Board determined during the cited inter partes reexamination that no written description support was provided for a number of limitations identical to those recited in the new claims. Id. (citing Ex. 1007, 32–36). For at least these reasons, we find that Patent Owner has not complied with the substantive requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(b)(1). 6. Conclusion As discussed above, Patent Owner has not demonstrated compliance with 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.221(a), 42.221(a)(2)(i), 42.221(a)(2)(i), 42.221(a)(3), or 42.221(b)(1) or 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(1)(B) and (3). As such, Patent Owner has failed to meet the substantive requirements for a motion to amend.” slip op. at 52

  Patent outcomesUS 7,340,506 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Enfish · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,340,506
• Google, Inc. / Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · 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 · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 8,118,221
• Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · 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 · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 8,033,458
• Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · 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 · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 8,794,516
• Apple Inc. / Google, Inc. v. Smartflash LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · 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 · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 8,336,772
• Apple Inc. / Google, Inc. v. Smartflash LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 10, 2016 · CBM2015-00132 · APJ Matthew R Clements · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 2–4, 6, 7, 9, 11–13, 15–18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27–29, 31, and 33–36 are unpatentable under § 101 as directed to an abstract idea without an inventive concept.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Patent Owner has not articulated a persuasive reason for excluding Dr. Kelly’s Declaration. Because Exhibit 1019 relates to the underlying factual issues related to patent eligibility, we are not persuaded that it is irrelevant under FRE 401 and 402. 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. Accordingly, we decline to exclude Exhibit 1019 in its entirety or any paragraph therein.” slip op. at 32

  • BurdenUnpatentable

    “ineligible abstract idea. Specifically, the challenged claims are directed to performing the fundamental economic practice of conditioning and controlling access to content. For example, claim 35 recites “code responsive to the payment validation data to retrieve data from the data supplier and to write the retrieved data into the data carrier.” Claim 36 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.”” slip op. at 9

  • 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. For example, claim 35 recites “code responsive to the payment validation data to retrieve data from the data supplier and to write the retrieved data into the data carrier.” Claim 36 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 ’772 patent discusses addressing recording industry concerns of data pirates offering unauthorized access to widely available compressed audio recordings. Ex. 1001, 1:23–57. The Specification explains that these pirates obtain data either by unauthorized or legitimate means and then make the data available over the Internet without authorization. Id. The Specification further explains that once data has been published on the Internet, it is difficult to police access to and use of that data by internet users who may not even realize that it is pirated. Id. The ’772 patent proposes to solve this problem by restricting access to data on a portable data carrier based upon payment validation. Id. at 1:61–2:3. The ’772 patent makes clear that the crux of the claimed subject matter is restricting access to stored data based on supplier-defined access rules and validation of payment. Id. at 1:59–2:19. Although the Specification refers to data piracy on the Internet, the challenged claims are not limited to the Internet. The underlying concept of the challenged claims, particularly when viewed in light of the Specification, is paying for and/or 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.” slip op. at 9

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable

    “recite only well-known, routine, and conventional computer components and activities, which is insufficient to establish an inventive concept.” Pet. Reply 5. We are persuaded that 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 add an inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the abstract idea itself. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355; see also Accenture Global Servs., 728 F.3d at 1344 (holding claims directed to the abstract idea of “generating tasks [based on] rules . . . to be completed upon the occurrence of an event” to be unpatentable even when applied in a computer environment and within the insurance industry). Specifically, we agree with and adopt the rationale articulated in the Petition that the additional elements of the challenged claims are either field of use limitations and/or generic features of a computer that do not bring the challenged claims within § 101 patent eligibility. Pet. 50–76.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 8,336,772 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 8,336,772
• Google, Inc. / Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 10, 2016 · CBM2015-00130 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 3–10, 15–31, and 33 are unpatentable under § 101; claim 22 is also indefinite under § 112.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • 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. For example, claim 17 recites “code to evaluate the use status data using the use rules data to determine whether access is permitted to the stored data.” Ex. 1001, 27:1–15. As discussed above, the ’221 patent discusses addressing recording industry concerns of data pirates offering unauthorized access to widely available compressed audio recordings. Ex. 1001, 1:20–55. The Specification explains that these pirates obtain data either by unauthorized or legitimate means and then make the data available over the Internet without authorization. Id. The Specification further explains that once data has been published on the Internet, it is difficult to police access to and use of it by internet users who may not even realize that it is pirated. Id. The ’221 patent proposes to solve this problem by restricting access to data on a portable data carrier based upon payment validation. Id. at 1:59–2:4. The ’221 patent makes clear that the crux of the claimed subject matter is restricting access to stored data based on supplier-defined access rules and validation of payment. Id. at 1:59–2:15. Although the Specification refers to data piracy on the Internet, the challenged claims are not limited to the Internet. The underlying concept of the challenged claims, particularly when viewed in light of the Specification, is controlling access to content based upon payment 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.” slip op. at 10

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable

    “recite only well-known, routine, and conventional computer components and activities, which is insufficient to establish an inventive concept.” Reply 6. Petitioner adds that “[t]he specification [of the ’221 patent] itself disclaims [the claimed hardware elements] as non-inventive.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 4:4–13, 11:28–29, 12:29–32, 13:35–38, 16:46–50, 18:7–17). We are persuaded that claims 3–10, 15–31, and 33 do not add an inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the abstract idea itself. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355; see also Accenture Global Servs., 728 F.3d at 1344 (holding claims directed to the abstract idea of “generating tasks [based on] rules . . . to be completed upon the occurrence of an event” to be unpatentable even when applied in a computer environment and within the insurance industry). Specifically, we agree with and adopt the rationale articulated in the Petition that the additional elements of the challenged claims are generic features of a computer that do not bring the challenged claims within § 101 patent eligibility. Pet. 49–82; Reply 6–19; ’126 Pet. 25–31; ’126 Reply 8–12.” slip op. at 15

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteUnpatentable

    “Upon consideration of the entire record, we are persuaded sufficiently byPetitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know that the antecedent basis for “said use rules” refers back to the “use rules data” introduced in claim 17. Although lack of antecedent basis alone is insufficient to render a claim indefinite, here the lack of antecedent basis introduces ambiguity into the claim. It is unclear whether claim 22 should recite “use rules” or “said use rules data,” rather than “said use rules.” As indicated above, we have construed “use rules” and “use rules data” differently. Accordingly, we are persuaded that claim 22 is amenable to two plausible claim interpretations, and we determine that the phrase “said use rules” does not inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty and, therefore, is indefinite under 35 U.S.C § 112, ¶ 2. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (affirming Board’s conclusion, in context of ex parte appeal, that claims were indefinite “on grounds that they ‘contain[ ] words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.’”).” slip op. at 32

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Patent Owner has not articulated a persuasive reason for excluding Dr. Tygar’s Declaration. Because Exhibit 1002 relates to the underlying factual issues related to patent eligibility, we are not persuaded that it is irrelevant under FRE 401 and 402. 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. Accordingly, we decline to exclude Exhibit 1002 in its entirety or any paragraph therein.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 8,118,221 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 8,118,221
• Apple Inc. / Samsung Electronics Ltd et al. v. Smartflash LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Aug 24, 2016 · CBM2015-00031 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · CBM · Rehearing

  The Board denied Smartflash’s rehearing request and left its decision that claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 are unpatentable under § 101 unchanged.

  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 two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable

    “As we stated in our Final Written Decision and Petitioners argue, the ’772 patent specification treats as well-known and conventional all potentially technical elements of claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 the claimed code performs generic computer functions, and the claims recite several generic and conventional data types. Final Dec. 14–17; Notice Resp. 1–2. These limitations of claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 “do not yield a result that overrides the routine and conventional manner in which this technology operates.” Final Dec. 20. Rather, each of the challenged claims is “an abstract-idea-based solution implemented with generic technical components in a conventional way,” making it patent ineligible. See BASCOM, 2016 WL 3514158, at *6, 3 We note that U.S. Patent No. 7,334,720 B2 is not at issue in this proceeding. *7. Also, “[t]he concept of storing two different types of information4 in the same place or on the same device is an age old practice.” Final Dec. 22. For example, “the prior art discloses products, such as electronic data, that could store both the content and conditions for providing access to the content, such as ‘a time bomb or other disabling device which will disable the product at the end of the rental period.’” Id. at 22–23 (citing Ex. 1215, Abstract, 10:24–30).” slip op. at 7

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner

    “Rather than providing a proper request for rehearing, addressing particular matters that we previously misapprehended or overlooked, Smartflash’s Request provides new briefing by expounding on argument already made. Smartflash cannot simply allege that an “issue” (e.g., whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea) was previously addressed, generally, and proceed to present new argument on that issue in a request for rehearing. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71. Smartflash’s arguments are either new or were addressed in our Final Decision. For example, Smartflash’s argument that the challenged claims are not directed to an abstract idea (Req. Reh’g 10–12) is new, and therefore, improper in a request for rehearing, because Smartflash did not argue the first step of the analysis articulated in Mayo and Alice in its Patent Owner Response. See PO Resp. 16–25 (Patent Owner Response argues that claims are statutory under only the second step of Mayo and Alice); see also Paper 42 (transcript of oral hearing), 6:13–16 (Petitioner stating that “Patent Owner has presented no argument whatsoever to contest that its claims are directed to abstract ideas under the first prong of Mayo and Alice.”), id. at 6:17–18 (Petitioner also stating “It [] also never disputed the articulation of those abstract ideas”).” slip op. at 5

  § 101 eligibilitycites Alice
  Patents in suitUS 8,336,772
• Apple Inc. / Google Inc. v. Smartflash LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 26, 2016 · CBM2015-00029 · APJ Rama G Elluru · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 3 and 15 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of conditioning access to content on payment using only generic, conventional computer elements.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “Petitioner argues that claims 3 and 15 are directed to the abstract idea of “paying for and/or controlling access to content.” Pet. 19; see id. at 20– 23. Although Smartflash does not concede, in its Patent Owner Response, that claims 3 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea, it does not persuasively explain how the challenged claims escape being classified as abstract. PO Resp. 15–22 (Patent Owner Response argues that claims are statutory under only the second step of Mayo and Alice); see also Paper 41 (transcript of oral hearing), 6:13–16 (Petitioner stating that “Patent Owner has presented no argument whatoever to contest that its claims are directed to abstract ideas under the first prong of Mayo and Alice.”) id. at 6:17–18 (Petitioner also stating “It [] also never disputed the articulation of those abstract ideas”). We are persuaded that claims 3 and 15 are drawn to an abstract idea. Specifically, claims 3 and 15 are directed to performing the fundamental economic practice of conditioning and controlling access to content based on payment. Claim 3 recites “code . . . to receive at least one access rule . . . the at least one access rule specifying at least one condition for accessing the retrieved data written into the data carrier, the at least one condition being dependent upon the amount of payment associated with the payment data forwarded to the payment validation system.” Independent claim 14, not at issue here, recites a similar limitation. Claim 15, depending from claim 14, further recites “receiving payment validation data . . . and transmitting at least a portion of the payment validation data to the data supplier.”” slip op. at 9

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable

    “inventive concept” because any additional features recited in the challenge claims are either field of use limitaitons or generic computer implementations, which Petitioner argues are insufficient to bring the claims within § 101 patent eligibility. Pet. 23–28. Specifically, Petitioner contends that the challenged claims “recite no more than generic computer elements and functions that were well-known, routine, and conventional to a POSITA at the time of filing.” Reply 6 (citations omitted); see id. at 13–14. Petitioner persuades us that claims 3 and 15 of the ’720 patent do not add an inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to significantly more than claims on the abstract idea itself. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355; see also Accenture Global Servs., 728 F.3d at 1344 (holding claims directed to the abstract idea of “generating tasks [based on] rules . . . to be completed upon the occurrence of an event” to be unpatentable even when applied in a computer environment and within the insurance industry). Specifically, we agree with and adopt Petitioner’s rationale that the additional elements of claims 3 and 15 are either field of use limitations or generic features of a computer that do not bring these claims within § 101 patent eligibility. Pet. 23–28; Reply 4–6. slip op. at 12

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part

    “We are persuaded by Petitioner that Exhibit 1302 is offered not for the truth of the matter asserted (i.e., the content of the ’720 patent), but as evidence of how Smartflash has characterized the ’720 patent. Thus, Smartflash has not persuaded us that Exhibit 1302 is evidence of the content of a writing or that it is cumulative to the ’720 patent. Furthermore, Smartflash has not persuaded us that Exhibit 1302 is irrelevant, at least because its characterization of the ’720 patent in prior proceedings is relevant to the credibility of its characterization of the ’720 patent in this proceeding. Smartflash contends that Exhibit 1302 does not contradict its characterization of the ’720 patent in this proceeding such that the credibility of Smartflash’s characterization is an issue. Paper 30, 3. Smartflash’s argument misses the point because the credibility of Smartflash’s characterization is for us to decide, and we have to consider the document at issue in making that determination. Further, as Petitioner notes (Paper 32, 2), Smartflash’s characterization of the ’720 patent in prior proceedings is relevant to Smartflash’s contention in this proceeding that the ’720 patent does not satisfy the “financial in nature” requirement for a covered business method patent review (Prelim. Resp. 5–10). Accordingly, we decline to exclude Exhibit 1302.” slip op. at 27

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Smartflash has not articulated a persuasive reason for excluding Mr. Wechselberger’s Declaration. Smartflash 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 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 30

  Patent outcomesUS 7,334,720 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 7,334,720
• Apple Inc. / Samsung Electronics Ltd et al. v. Smartflash LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 26, 2016 · CBM2015-00031 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract idea without an inventive concept.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 are directed to the abstract idea of “paying for and/or controlling access to content.” Pet. 23; see id. at 24–27. Although Smartflash does not concede, in its Patent Owner Response, that claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 are directed to an abstract idea, it does not persuasively explain how the challenged claims escape being classified as abstract. PO Resp. 15–25 (Patent Owner Response arguing that claims are statutory under only the second step of Mayo and Alice); see also Tr. 7:19–22 (Petitioner stating that “Patent Owner has made no argument that its claims are not directed to abstract ideas under the first prong of Mayo and Alice.”) (emphasis added), id. at 7:22–23 (Petitioner also stating “[Patent Owner] has never disputed the articulation of those abstract ideas”). We are persuaded that claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 are drawn to the abstract idea of conditioning and controlling access to content based on, for example, payment. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites “code to receive payment validation data . . . for said at least one selected item of multimedia content.” Independent claim 8 recites “code to control access to said selected content data item responsive to the payment validation data.” Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and recites “code to retrieve supplementary data via said wireless interface and output said supplementary data to said user using said display.” Claim 10 depends from claim 8 and recites “said data access terminal is integrated with a mobile communications device and audio/video player.”” slip op. at 10

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptIneligibleDecided for petitioner

    “2. Inventive Concept “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297). “This requires more than simply stating an abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it’ or ‘apply it with a computer.’ Similarly, the prohibition on patenting an ineligible concept cannot be circumvented by limiting the use of an ineligible concept to a particular technological environment.” Versata, 793 F.3d at 1332 (citations omitted). Moreover, the mere recitation of generic computer components performing conventional functions is not enough. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (“Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”). Petitioner argues that the challenged claims do not disclose an “inventive concept” because any additional features recited in the challenged claims are either field of use limitations—limiting the ideas of payment and controlling access to content to payment for retrieving “data” and controlling access to content based on “payment data”—or generic computer implementations, which Petitioner argues is insufficient to bring the claims within § 101 patent eligibility. Pet. 27–32. Specifically, Petitioner contends that the challenged claims “recite no more than generic computer elements and functions that were well-known, routine, and conventional to a POSITA at the time of filing.” Reply 6 (citations omitted); see id. at 13–14. Petitioner persuades us that claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 of the ’772 patent do not add an inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to significantly more than claims on the abstract idea itself. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355; see also Accenture Global Servs., 728 F.3d at 1344 (holding claims directed to the abstract idea of “generating tasks [based on] rules . . . to be completed upon the occurrence of an event” to be unpatentable even when applied in a computer environment and within the insurance industry). Specifically, we agree with and adopt Petitioner’s rationale that the additional elements of claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 are field of use limitations and/or generic features of a computer that do not bring these claims within § 101 patent eligibility. Pet. 27–32; Reply 4–6.” slip op. at 13

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part

    “We are persuaded by Petitioner that Exhibit 1202 is offered not for the truth of the matter asserted (i.e., the content of the ’772 patent), but as evidence of how Smartflash has characterized the ’772 patent. Thus, Smartflash has not persuaded us that Exhibit 1202 is evidence of the content of a writing or that it is cumulative to the ’772 patent. Furthermore, Smartflash has not persuaded us that Exhibit 1202 is irrelevant, at least because its characterization of the ’772 patent in prior proceedings is relevant to the credibility of its characterization of the ’772 patent in this proceeding. Smartflash contends that Exhibit 1202 does not contradict its characterization of the ’772 patent in this proceeding such that the credibility of Smartflash’s characterization is an issue. Paper 33, 3. Smartflash’s argument misses the point because the credibility of Smartflash’s characterization is for us to decide, and we have to consider the document at issue in making that determination. Further, as Petitioner notes (Paper 32, 2), Smartflash’s characterization of the ’772 patent in prior proceedings is relevant to Smartflash’s contention in this proceeding that the ’772 patent does not satisfy the “financial in nature” requirement for a covered business method patent review (Prelim. Resp. 5–11). Accordingly, we decline to exclude Exhibit 1202.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 8,336,772 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski
  Patents 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.