• Metacluster LT, Uab v. Bright Data Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · Mar 23, 2023 · PGR2022-00052 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · PGR · Institution

  Instituted PGR on claims 1–27; the Board found it more likely than not that the claims are obvious over Mithyantha, with claim 19 also challenged over Mithyantha and RFC 2616.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “We may not institute a post-grant review “unless . . . the information presented in the petition filed under section 321, if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute a post-grant review of the challenged claims of the ’034 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “had at least a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science or related field (or equivalent experience), and at least two years’ experience working with and programming networked computer systems.” Pet. 13 (referencing Ex. 1002 ¶ 33).” slip op. at 8

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The district court considered the issue of whether a client device, for instance, should be construed in a role-based or structural manner, and the evaluation included whether a device could sometimes be operated as a client and at other times could operate as something else. Ex. 1018, 48–51. In support, the district pointed the patent disclosure that: Any network element in the system may be a dedicated device that assumes only a single role, and thus being only a client (using tunnels), a tunnel, a client (using agents/ peers), an agent, or a peer device. Alternatively or in addition, a network element may be capable of assuming two or more roles, either at different times or simultaneously, from the list of roles including a client (using tunnels), a tunnel, a client (using agents/peers), an agent, or a peer device. Alternatively or in addition, a device may be capable of assuming all of the above roles. Ex. 1018, 50 (quoting ’866 patent at 125:33–42, with identical disclosure in ’034 patent (Ex. 1001, 125:24–33)).” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted

    “At this stage of the proceedings, we do not agree that Mithyantha’s second appliance 200’/200b cannot be considered the claimed “second client device” and its first appliance 200/200a cannot be considered the claimed “third server.” As discussed supra Section II.C, we have adopted the district court’s constructions of claim terms. More specifically, the district court determined, and we concur based on the present record, that “client device” is “a device that is operating in the role of a client by requesting services, functionalities, or resources from other devices” and a “first server” functions as “a server that is not the client device.” On this record, Petitioner has demonstrated that Mithyantha’s second appliance 200’/200b functions as the claimed “second client device,” as it operates as a client by requesting services, functionalities, or resources from other devices, that is, it transmits HTTP web requests over the network to a server. See Pet. 44– 45. Mithyantha also discloses that its first appliance 200/200a functions in a server role, with appliance 200/200a sending back responses to client 102a, that is, content from the web server, and it is a separate element from a client device. See id. at 41–42. Moreover, as discussed above, Petitioner’s assertions are consistent with the role-based nature of the elements as disclosed in the ’034 patent. Further, we do not find that Petitioner’s applications of the claim elements to Mithyantha are arbitrary because they are consistent with the district court’s claim construction of the respective claimed elements and the elements’ functions and roles, as discussed. Moreover, Mithyantha discloses that its appliances can provide different functions (see e.g. Ex. 1009, 5:31–33, 8:65–67, 9:8–21, 9:53–55; 23:58–64), and may be implemented in many forms. That is, the implementation of appliance 200 is generally described as being on any form of computing device such as “computing device 100,” and “computing device 100 can be any workstation, desktop computer, laptop or notebook computer, server, handheld computer, mobile telephone.” See id. at 13:65– 142, 16:58–64. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s allegations regarding a required architecture. Patent Owner does not explain how these requirements are recited in the limitations of claims. Instead, at this juncture, it appears that the arguments are an attempt to impermissibly introduce limitations into the claim that are not recited. Similarly, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments on required anonymity because this requirement is not recited in the claims.” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,272,034
• Google LLC v. Videoshare LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 24, 2021 · CBM2020-00027 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · CBM · Institution

  The Board denied institution of CBM review for claims 1–7 because the patent did not qualify as a covered business method patent; it did not reach the § 101 challenge.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “covered business method patent review, the focus is on the claims. Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (challenged patent eligible for review because the claims recited “an express financial component in the form of a subsidy” that was “central to the operation of the claimed invention”). Thus, “§ 18 (d)(1) directs us to examine the claims when deciding whether a patent is a CBM patent.” Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1340. More specifically, the focus is on the claims to determine whether there is anything “explicitly or inherently financial in the construed claim language.” Id. The claims of the ’341 patent are directed to “[a] method for sharing video over a structured hierarchical network.” Ex. 1001, 25:14–15. We are not persuaded that this a financial activity. We agree with Patent Owner that the focus of the claims is video sharing technology. Prelim. Resp. 21. The claims describe a series of method steps for sharing video content involving servers and video files. Nowhere do the claims discuss or suggest obtaining payment or remuneration. Thus, the claims are unlike those in Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d 1331. In Blue Calypso, the claims expressly recited the term “subsidy,” which the Board construed as “financial assistance given by one to another.” Id. at 1339–40. The Federal Circuit explained that based on this understanding, the Board had concluded that the claims “were financial in nature” and instituted CBM review. Id. at 1340. The Federal Circuit agreed with the Board’s analysis and affirmed its decision to institute CBM patent review: “Significantly, Blue Calypso has not challenged the Board’s interpretation of subsidy as ‘financial assistance given by one to another.’” Id.” slip op. at 6

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “covered business method patent review, the focus is on the claims. Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (challenged patent eligible for review because the claims recited “an express financial component in the form of a subsidy” that was “central to the operation of the claimed invention”). Thus, “§ 18 (d)(1) directs us to examine the claims when deciding whether a patent is a CBM patent.” Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1340. More specifically, the focus is on the claims to determine whether there is anything “explicitly or inherently financial in the construed claim language.” Id. The claims of the ’341 patent are directed to “[a] method for sharing video over a structured hierarchical network.” Ex. 1001, 25:14–15. We are not persuaded that this a financial activity. We agree with Patent Owner that the focus of the claims is video sharing technology. Prelim. Resp. 21. The claims describe a series of method steps for sharing video content involving servers and video files. Nowhere do the claims discuss or suggest obtaining payment or remuneration. Thus, the claims are unlike those in Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d 1331. In Blue Calypso, the claims expressly recited the term “subsidy,” which the Board construed as “financial assistance given by one to another.” Id. at 1339–40. The Federal Circuit explained that based on this understanding, the Board had concluded that the claims “were financial in nature” and instituted CBM review. Id. at 1340. The Federal Circuit agreed with the Board’s analysis and affirmed its decision to institute CBM patent review: “Significantly, Blue Calypso has not challenged the Board’s interpretation of subsidy as ‘financial assistance given by one to another.’” Id.” slip op. at 6

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Not reached

    “E. Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are directed to an abstract idea that is not eligible subject matter for a patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Pet. 77. According to Petitioner, “[t]he claims recite the abstract idea of including advertising with appropriately formatted video.” Id. at 80. Patent Owner responds that Petitioner has failed to show that the claims recite ineligible subject matter. Prelim. Resp. 64. According to Patent Owner, “[t]he ’341 Patent claims recite specific steps that improve the functioning of a video server providing shared video files.” Id. Because we have determined that the ’341 patent does not qualify for covered business method patent review, we do not address whether the claims recite eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” slip op. at 11

  § 101 eligibilityDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,362,341
• Ebay, Inc. v. Paid, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 16, 2015 · CBM2014-00126 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–21 are unpatentable under § 101 as directed to an abstract idea without an inventive concept, and under § 103 over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Despite Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary, we see little difference between determining shipping rates and tax rates for auctioned items and the type of fundamental economic practices considered to be abstract ideas in Alice Corp. and Bilski.3 As established by the record, both 2 Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010). 3 In Alice Corp., the Supreme Court determined that the claims at issue were “drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement,” i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk. Id. at 2356. Furthermore, the Supreme Court determined that “[l]ike the risk hedging in Bilski, the concept of conventional auctions and shipping rate calculations existed long before the Internet. See, e.g., Rotman Decl. ¶¶ 4–8; Greenspun Decl. ¶¶ 31–37; Hearing Tr. 56:17–21. We conclude, therefore, that Petitioner has demonstrated that the ʼ642 patent claims, like the claims in Bilski and Alice, are directed to an abstract idea, namely, determining shipping rates for online sales.” slip op. at 17

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

    “We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument for patentability under § 101. First, the claims of the ʼ642 patent do not reflect the asserted “inventive concept” identified by Patent Owner, namely, the ability to calculate shipping rates and tax rates in real time. Patent Owner asserts that the reference in the claims to an “online auction” accomplishes this. Hearing Tr. 62:18–20. But as Petitioner points out, the claims do not recite any form of real-time calculations. The claims simply recite steps that were routinely done manually before the filing date of the patent. Hearing Tr. 7:16–22; Rotman Dep. 127:19–128:5. The claims, moreover, do not even refer specifically to online auctions. More fundamentally, however, simply adding a computer limitation to claims covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patentable under § 101, even if the use of a computer enables faster operation. Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e., through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations. SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Likewise, “the use of the Internet is not sufficient to save otherwise abstract claims from ineligibility under § 101.” Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716 (Fed. Cir. 2014). For these reasons, Patent Owner’s argument based on meeting the asserted need for speed and other requirements of online auctions fails.” slip op. at 20

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “correct. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the “claims should always be read in light of the specification and teachings in the underlying patent.” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1297–98 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, we interpret the term “shipping rate” to mean “the overall or total cost of sending an auction item to a buyer.” This interpretation is consistent with the patent specification’s disclosure of shipping calculator system 1000 and its rate engine 1024 for calculating shipping rates based on various inputs, as illustrated in Figure 10, reproduced below. Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 38–42. Figure 10 shows a computer-based system with a shipping calculator. The ’642 patent discloses that rate engine 1024 may include modules for calculating factors that contribute to the overall shipping rate to include shipping rate engine 1028, tax rate engine 1030, insurance rate engine 1032, packaging algorithm engine 1033, and fee-based rate engine 1034. Id. at col. 7, ll. 45–50. Shipping rate engine 1028 calculates a basic shipping rate for an item based on the distance between seller and buyer locations, the weight of the item, the weight of any packaging, and method of shipment. Id. at col. 8, ll. 34–42. Tax rate engine 1030 determines what taxes may apply. Id. at col. 8, ll. 43–44. Insurance rate engine 1032 calculates a cost of insurance to be added to the overall shipping rate based on buyer and seller preferences. Id. at col. 8, ll. 51–55. Packaging is an important factor in shipping cost, so packaging algorithm engine 1033 determines appropriate packaging based on seller preferences and the size, weight, or shape of the item and applies a factor to the shipping rate. Id. at col. 8, ll. 6–14. Fee-based engine 1034 calculates rates based on seller inputs such as rates charged for shipping and handling above the rates from common carriers and may include a flat rate for shipping, or a flat rate per item shipped. Id. at col. 8, ll. 15–29. Rate engine 1024 integrates inputs from the calculations of these other modules and engines, and applies whatever discounts or other factors are required if the components are not simply added, “to obtain a shipping rate based on the various inputs.” Id. at col. 8, ll. 56–60 (emphasis added). The ’642 patent also discloses that the shipping rate may be a flat rate from feebased engine 1034, a rate calculated from the other engines, or a rate from a combination of different types of calculations. Id. at col. 8, ll. 60–63. Thus, the patent discloses that rate engine 1000 calculates a “shipping rate” that includes not only a basic transportation cost but also many other costs that contribute to the total cost to send an item to a buyer.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “the combinability of the sales tax calculation flow chart in Illinois Sales Tax to perform accurate tax calculations for the state of Illinois or another jurisdiction,” including the tax and duty calculations set forth in Van Zandt. Pet. 55 (citing Greenspun Decl. ¶ 56). We do not credit Patent Owner’s argument limiting Van Zandt’s teachings to international shipping. Van Zandt provides a comprehensive logistics services system and method, including providing landed cost quoting (62), to integrate logistics vendors “across any industry, at any time, no matter what vendor carrier [] or mode of transportation is to be used and no matter what country the shipment is being handled in or delivered to.” Ex. 1011, Abstract (emphasis added). More specifically, Van Zandt states that its system can calculate “any shipment duties and taxes.” Id. at 22:18 (emphasis added); see also id. at 32:11–17. Nothing in Van Zandt discredits or disallows the calculation of domestic taxes as a component of its calculation of “any shipment duties and taxes.” We credit Dr. Greenspun’s interpretation of the Van Zandt system as being “capable of handling the simpler task of calculating domestic taxes.” Greenspun Decl. ¶ 54. We further credit Dr. Greenspun’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Van Zandt with other references “whenever international shipping was potentially required,” and that references such as Illinois Sales Tax would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to figure sales tax on domestic sales. Id. at ¶ 56. The motivation to combine references can come from many sources, engineering. Greenspun Decl. ¶¶ 3–16. We determine him to be an expert in the field relevant to this patent and credit his testimony. including the nature of the problem to be solved. ABT Sys., LLC v. Emerson Elec. Co., Nos. 2014-1618, 2014-1700, 2015 WL 4924160, at *9 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 19, 2015) (citing Ruiz v. A.B. Chance, 357 F.3d 1270, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We determine, therefore, that Petitioner has presented sufficiently articulated and persuasive reasoning for combining the teachings of Van Zandt and Illinois Sales Tax that is supported by rational underpinnings. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 8,521,642 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,521,642
• Ebay, Inc. v. Paid, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 16, 2015 · CBM2014-00125 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 are unpatentable under §§ 101 and 103(a), as directed to an abstract idea without an inventive concept and obvious over the asserted prior-art combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “patent does not claim an abstract idea simply because it is directed to online auctions. PO Resp. 22; Hearing Tr. 56:10–12. As the Federal Circuit recently reminded us, “[a]n abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment such as the Internet.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (US), 792 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citations omitted). We are, therefore, not convinced by Patent Owner’s argument that the claims are not abstract because they are limited to a specific application.” slip op. at 16

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

    “under § 101. First, the claims of the ʼ357 patent do not reflect the asserted “inventive concept” identified by Patent Owner, namely, the ability to calculate shipping rates and tax rates in real time. Patent Owner asserts that the reference in the claims to an “online auction” accomplishes this. Hearing Tr. 62:18–20. But as Petitioner points out, the claims do not recite any form of real-time calculations. The claims simply recite steps that were routinely done manually before the filing date of the patent. Hearing Tr. 7:16–22; Rotman Dep. 127:19–128:5. More fundamentally, however, simply adding a computer limitation to claims covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patentable under § 101, even if the use of a computer enables faster operation. Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e., through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations. SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Likewise, “the use of the Internet is not sufficient to save otherwise abstract claims from ineligibility under § 101.” Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716 (Fed. Cir. 2014). For these reasons, Patent Owner’s argument based on meeting the asserted need for speed and other requirements of online auctions fails.” slip op. at 19

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that it would have been obvious to combine Van Zandt and Illinois Sales Tax. Pet. 58–59. We are convinced by Petitioner’s arguments, supported by the testimony of Dr. Greenspun,5 that one of ordinary skill in the would have “readily appreciated the combinability of the sales tax calculation flow chart in Illinois Sales Tax to perform accurate tax calculations for the state of Illinois or another jurisdiction,” including the tax and duty calculations set forth in Van Zandt. Pet. 58 (citing Greenspun Decl. ¶ 56). We do not credit Patent Owner’s argument limiting Van Zandt’s teachings to international shipping. Van Zandt provides a comprehensive logistics services system and method, including providing landed cost quoting (62), to integrate logistics vendors “across any industry, at any time, 5 Dr. Greenspun holds a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from MIT. He has authored five computer science textbooks. He has taught at MIT and has over 20 years of experience in computer software engineering. Greenspun Decl. ¶¶ 3–16. We determine him to be an expert in the field relevant to this patent and credit his testimony. no matter what vendor carrier [] or mode of transportation is to be used and no matter what country the shipment is being handled in or delivered to.” Ex. 1011, Abstract (emphasis added). More specifically, Van Zandt states that its system can calculate “any shipment duties and taxes.” Id. at 22:18 (emphasis added); see also id. at 32:11–17. Nothing in Van Zandt discredits or disallows the calculation of domestic taxes as a component of its calculation of “any shipment duties and taxes.” We credit Dr. Greenspun’s interpretation of the Van Zandt system as” slip op. at 26

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “reason to combine the references because they “teach away.” Hearing Tr. 94:13–14. But in response to questioning by the panel, Patent Owner’s counsel agreed that Hosey does not disparage the type of calculation being done in PriceGrabber.com, taking instead the position that the two are not “necessarily compatible.” Hearing Tr. 94:19–95:14. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s teaching away argument. Nowhere does Patent Owner demonstrate that Hosey criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the use of its listing or Details page with a shipping interface. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (prior art’s disclosure did not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed solution and therefore did not teach away). We do not agree, either, that the references are not “compatible.” See supra.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 8,352,357 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,352,357
• Bank Of America, N.A. / PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. et al. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 19, 2015 · CBM2014-00029 · APJ Hyun J Jung · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–18 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of protecting billing data with substitute billing data using only generic, routine computer activity.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner replies, and we agree, that the claims of the ’701 patent do not require that “substitute billing data” be tied to an actual financial account or be tested by an existing payment system. Also, we determine that the Specification does not describe how billing data becomes valid. The portion of Patent Owner’s expert declaration cited in Patent Owner’s Response does not refer to any portion of the Specification. PO Resp. 11; Martin Decl. ¶¶ 35–37. Thus, Patent Owner’s arguments regarding “valid billing data” do not persuade us that “substitute billing data” applies only to electronic transactions. Based on our conclusions from the Specification of the ’701 patent regarding “client” and the lack of any disclosure for validating billing data and the complete record before us, we are not persuaded that the broadest, reasonable interpretation of “substitute billing data” requires only electronic transactions. We determine that the broadest, reasonable interpretation of “substitute billing data” in view of the Specification is “valid billing data that is owned and/or controlled by a billing service, where billing data is temporarily or permanently distributed to clients to replace personal and/or private billing data of the client.” See Ex. 1001, 3:11–16. Also, Patent Owner’s arguments for “substitute billing data” do not persuade us to modify our interpretation of “a substitute for said personal billing data” and “substitutes for personal billing data.”” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “The Specification of the ’701 patent also states that, “[f]or the purposes of this description, the phrase ‘web site’ is intended to be a general reference to a network ‘presence’ maintained by a business as well [as] a logical presence maintained on behalf of a business.” Ex. 1001, 2:66–3:2. When this statement is considered together with Patent Owner’s asserted definition of “businesses”—that “each of the network locations to which a client may communicate provide[s] a ‘web site’ for engaging in commercial transactions”—the ’701 patent uses “businesses” or “business” to refer to the network locations, web sites, network presences or logical presences maintained by or on behalf of a business. Thus, we interpret “business” or “businesses” to mean the “network locations, web sites, network presences or logical presences maintained by or on behalf of a business.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480.” slip op. at 11

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

    “C. Are the ’701 Patent Claims Directed to Abstract Ideas? Petitioner argues that “the claims are directed to the basic idea of protecting personal billing data from thieves and hackers by providing ‘substitute billing data’ to a consumer for making online purchasing transactions.” Pet. 21. Patent Owner responds that Petitioner’s proposed abstract idea “does not rise to the level of a ‘fundamental building block’ of technology, of economic behavior, or of human organization.” PO Resp. 24–25 (citing Pet. 21), 27–28 (citing Martin Decl. ¶ 76); Tr. 56:15–22. Patent Owner also argues that, even if online purchasing transactions were a “fundamental building block,” the claims are directed to “a very specific subset of transactions that use a specific subset of ‘substitute billing data.’” Id. at 28–29 (citing Martin Decl. ¶ 17). Petitioner replies that “there is no rule that an idea is abstract only if it falls within a particular category of abstract ideas.” Reply 8–9. We are persuaded by the Supreme Court’s opinion in Alice that Petitioner is correct, and that these enumerated categories were not intended as exclusive. Specifically, the Court wrote: “In any event, we need not labor to delimit the precise contours of the ‘abstract ideas’ category in this case.” 134 S. Ct. at 2357; accord Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347. Furthermore, providing substitute billing data is similar in principle to using a purchasing agent. We, therefore, conclude that the first step in the Alice/Mayo test is met for claims 1–18 of the ’701 patent.” slip op. at 20

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

    “Three of the four steps of claim 1 recite an “electronic device facilitating . . .” and the last step recites the “electronic device obtaining” The plain and ordinary meaning of “electronic device” does not tie claim 1 “to any particular novel machine or apparatus, only a general purpose computer.” See Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716. In arguing that the “electronic device” is integral to the claim, Patent Owner cites its expert declaration, but the declaration relies on Patent Owner’s proposed interpretations of “substitute billing data” and “billing service,” which we did not adopt. See Martin Decl. ¶¶ 69–77. Also, the words of the claim do not specify how the electronic device facilitates or obtains the recited activities. Claim 1 generally recites the activities of requesting credit card numbers, obtaining credit card numbers as a substitute for personal billing data, and purchasing from businesses associated with the credit card numbers. We find no persuasive evidence in the record that claim 1 recites more than “well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298. Thus, based on the complete record before us, we conclude that method claim 1, which merely requires generic computer implementation, fails to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 7,664,701 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 7,664,701
• Bank Of America, N.A. / PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. et al. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 24, 2015 · CBM2014-00030 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–23 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract idea implemented with routine, conventional activity.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “are directed to the abstract idea of tailoring an information provider’s web page based on data about a particular user. Institution Dec. 12. Patent Owner responds that the claims do not fall within any of the “categories of abstract ideas enumerated by the Supreme Court.” PO Resp. 15. Citing Alice, Patent Owner asserts that the claims are not directed to “an idea itself, a mathematical formula or algorithm, a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce, or a method of organizing human activity.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, Patent Owner asserts, the first step in the Alice/Mayo test is not met. Id. at 15–21. Petitioners respond that in Alice, the Supreme Court expressly declined to limit the categories of unpatentable abstract ideas as suggested by Patent Owner. Reply 3. We are persuaded by the Supreme Court’s opinion in Alice that Petitioners are correct, and that these enumerated categories were not intended as exclusive. Specifically, the Court wrote: “In any event, we need not labor to delimit the precise contours of the ‘abstract ideas’ category in this case.” 134 S. Ct. at 2357; accord Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347. We are influenced also by the evidence from Patent Owner’s expert, who testified as follows: I’m trying to make clear that the patent is described at what may appear to be a fairly high abstract level, because it was generally known by persons of skill in the art that there are multiple ways to go about reducing the invention to practice depending upon the technologies that they have at hand. And it wasn’t the patent’s job to be that specific at the time. I shouldn’t say it wasn’t the patent’s job. The inventor did not choose to describe at that level of detail. Ex. 1037, 47:12–23 (emphasis added). We therefore conclude that the first step in the Alice/Mayo test is met for claims 1–23.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We are convinced by Petitioners’ argument that the ʼ382 patent claims do not contain an “inventive concept” sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a patentable invention. Stated another way, we determine that the claims do not “significantly more than simply describe that abstract method.” Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715. Instead, “the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with routine, conventional activity.” Id.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s expert does not rebut convincingly Dr. Myers’s claim- by-claim analysis. Instead, Patent Owner’s expert addresses the claims in two groups only. Ex. 2003, ¶¶ 26–28. We find this approach unconvincing, and therefore, credit Dr. Myers’s testimony as to specific claims over the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert. We are therefore persuaded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that, like the claims considered in Ultramercial, claims 1–23 of the ʼ382 patent simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with routine, conventional activity. Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715. For the reasons stated above, none of the elements recited in the claims, including the “interactive interface” and the “plurality of data streams,” transforms the nature of the claims into patent-eligible subject matter. We credit the cited testimony of Patent Owner’s expert that the ʼ382 patent lacks implementation details because it is written at a “fairly high abstract level.” See supra. As a result of this choice by the patentee, the risk of preemption is great.” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner contends that neither Petitioners nor the Board provides any evidence that “interactive” and “Internet” have the same meaning, “either in the ʼ382 patent or as understood by one of skill in the art.” PO Resp. 7. Patent Owner further contends that Board should adopt a construction requiring the interface to be a “selectively tailored medium.” Id. at 8–9. Petitioners respond that there are not any claim terms “that could reasonably be construed in a manner that would impact the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis.” Reply 11. Petitioners further contend that the Board’s construction was nevertheless correct because the patent specification and claims make it clear that it is the information that is “selectively tailored,” not the information medium. Id. at 11–12. We are not convinced of any error in our initial construction of “interactive interface” as an Internet interface. Institution Dec. 6. Petitioners’ reliance on the Myers Declaration and the ʼ382 patent’s interchangeable use of interactive and Internet to describe the interface are persuasive. Pet. 15, 17 (citing Myers Dec., Ex. 1004 ¶ 52), 18 (citing Ex. 1001, Title, Abstract). We, therefore, determine that the correct construction of “interactive interface” is “an Internet interface that provides a medium for information users to communicate with information providers.”” slip op. at 6

  Patent outcomesUS 7,603,382 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 7,603,382
• CRS Advanced Technologies, Inc. v. Frontline Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 21, 2014 · CBM2012-00005 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 3, 6, 7, 16, 24, and 33 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim abstract substitute fulfillment using generic computing technology without meaningful limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “the act of conveying or supplying for use making information available For each of the claim terms discussed above, we conclude that either definition would result in the same § 101 analysis. In other words, each of the challenged claims is unpatentable under § 101 whether or not we adopt CRS’s proposed claim constructions. Therefore, we conclude that each of the claim terms is given its ordinary and customary meaning and the issue of claim construction will not be addressed further.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We conclude that claims 3, 16, 24, and 33 are directed to abstract, and, therefore, unpatentable, methods for substitute fulfillment. The claims are directed to concepts for taking the preexisting process of substitute fulfillment and implementing it in a networked computing environment. We do not agree with Frontline’s argument that the computer technology is integral to the claimed subject matter. As we explained in the Decision to Institute, the “one or more computers,” “Internet communication link,” and “website” recited in claim 3 are not analogous to the GPS receiver in SiRF. Decision to Institute 10-11. Frontline has not directed us to anything in the record at trial to cause us to change our position. Frontline asserts that because the claimed limitations “generating and posting by one or more computers a list of one or more positions of one or more absent workers that need to be filed by one or more substitute workers on a website” and “receiving via at least one communication link absentee information” are required for the claimed process to work as intended, they, like the GPS receiver in SiRF, are integral to the claimed subject matter. PO Resp. 25-26. We, however, disagree. We find these additions of generic computer technology to be more akin to the addition of “computer-aided” to the claims of Dealertrack, and the additions of “transaction database” and “transmitting information” to the claims of Accenture. Accenture, 728 F.3d at 1339; Dealertrack, 674 F. 3d at 1333. Like the terms “computer-aided” in Dealertrack, and “transaction database” in Accenture, the terms “one or more computers,” “website,” and “communication link” at issue in this case do not impose meaningful limits on the challenged claims’ scope. This particular technology is employed only for the purposes of creating more efficient communication and data storage—basic functions of those components. Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 46-58 (stating that the advantages of the present invention are “to provide a reliable, efficient system . . . . that has low overhead and requires little . . . oversight. . . . includ[ing] an interface to the Internet . . . .[and] a central database”); see also col. 3, ll. 36-64 (describing the prior art automated systems). In other words, the claims here, even with the recitation of computing technology, are not part of a “technological advance” of any sort. See Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1279.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Like the terms “computer-aided” in Dealertrack, and “transaction database” in Accenture, the terms “one or more computers,” “website,” and “communication link” at issue in this case do not impose meaningful limits on the challenged claims’ scope. This particular technology is employed only for the purposes of creating more efficient communication and data storage—basic functions of those components. Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 46-58 (stating that the advantages of the present invention are “to provide a reliable, efficient system . . . . that has low overhead and requires little . . . oversight. . . . includ[ing] an interface to the Internet . . . .[and] a central database”); see also col. 3, ll. 36-64 (describing the prior art automated systems). In other words, the claims here, even with the recitation of computing technology, are not part of a “technological advance” of any sort. See Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1279.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 6,675,151 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility
  Patents in suitUS 6,675,151

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.