- American Express Company / American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. v. Signature Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 30, 2019 · CBM2018-00035 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 14 are unpatentable under § 101; proposed substitute claims 17–20 are unpatentable under § 101, and the contingent motion to amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“F. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)” slip op. at 32
- Expert testimonyOther
“For the above reasons, we are persuaded that Petitioner has met its” slip op. at 62
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Decided for petitioner
“1. Principles of Law Use of the word “means” in a claim gives rise to a rebuttable” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“Further, based on the entirety of the record, we determine that proposed substitute claims 17–20 are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence based on 35 U.S.C. § 101. Motion to Amend Outcome Claims Substitute Claims: Proposed in the Amendment 17–20 Substitute Claims: Motion to Amend Denied 17–20” slip op. at 101
Patent outcomesUS 8,423,402 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · EnfishPatents in suitUS 8,423,402 - Autodesk, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. And Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 11, 2017 · CBM2016-00043 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–7, and 12–19 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 3, 8–11, and 20 are subject to adverse judgment after disclaimer.
RulingsFinal written decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“B. Statutory Disclaimer During the pendency of this proceeding, Patent Owner filed a disclaimer pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a). Ex. 2014. According to this disclaimer, Patent Owner disclaims claims 3, 8–11, and 20 of the ’820 patent. Id.; see also Resp. 1 (“Contemporaneously with the filing of this Response, Patent Owner is disclaiming claims 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 20 of the ’820 Patent.”). Our rules provide for entry of adverse judgment against a Patent Owner who disclaims “a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). Although Patent Owner does not disclaim all the challenged claims, and although Patent Owner therefore has some claims remaining in this trial, we construe the disclaimer of claims 3, 8–11, and 20 as a request for the entry of adverse judgment solely with respect to those claims. We grant the request and enter adverse judgment with respect to claims 3, 8–11, and 20.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“1. Add-On Computer Software Code Both parties propose construing “add-on computer software code,” a term that appears in every challenged claim. Ex. 1001, 78:43–82:36. Petitioner argues that this term should be interpreted as a “set of computer code that cannot be run independently from a parent program.” Pet. 22. Patent Owner argues that the term should be interpreted as “set of computer code that is designed to run within a parent computer software application or code, particularly architectural CAD software (or another architectural, civil, industrial, or other software design tool), as an internal component.” Resp. 42–43. We agree with Patent Owner. Patent Owner’s construction is taken directly from the written description of the ’820 patent, which provides a reasonably clear, deliberate, and precise definition of the term. See Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480; Ex. 1001, 61:42–51 (“The plug-in (add-on) computer software code is . . . .”). To the extent that Petitioner’s proposed construction seeks to limit add-on software code further by requiring that the software code be incapable of running independently from a parent program, as opposed merely to being designed to run within the parent program as an internal component, this further limitation is inconsistent with the lexicography undertaken by the patentee of the ’820 patent. Accordingly, we construe “add-on computer software code” as a “set of computer code that is designed to run within a parent computer software application or code, particularly architectural CAD software (or another architectural, civil, industrial, or other software design tool), as an internal component.”” slip op. at 6
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“As discussed above, the ’820 patent describes solving problems with the generation of cost estimates of construction projects, including that the process takes significant time and effort, that the estimates produced are difficult to revise, and that the estimates can be inaccurate, leading to cost overruns and difficulties obtaining construction loans. Ex. 1001, 1:15–62. The claims recite a computer readable medium or system for automating the process of generating a price schedule, which is used to develop the overall project cost estimate. Id. at 78:43–82:36. In so doing, the claims do not recite any “specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities,” such as the “self-referential table for a computer database” in Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336. Instead, the claims of the ’820 patent “invoke[]” known aspects of computer technology, including “[a] non-transitory computer readable medium,” “a computer that includes a processor and a memory,” “an add-on computer software code,” “a software design tool,” and “a database,” “merely as a tool” for solving the problem of improving the known process of generating construction project cost estimates. Id.; Ex. 1001, 78:43–60. Accordingly, the claims of the ’820 patent are not like those considered in Enfish, where the claims were determined at the first step of the Alice framework not to be directed to abstract ideas because they were directed to “[a] specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities.” 822 F.3d at 1336. Instead, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims of the ’820 patent are focused “on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea.’” Id. The ’820 patent makes clear that the heart of the claimed subject matter is generating prices for construction projects, a process that can be accomplished without automation technology. Ex. 1001, 1:15–62. The claims themselves recite “[a] non-transitory computer readable medium [that] causes [a] computer to generate a price schedule” and “[a] system for creating a pricing schedule.” Id. at 78:43–51, 82:4. As discussed above, the computer technology recited in the claims is used merely as a tool to automate the process of determining the price of a construction project. Determining a price is an abstract idea. See Versata Dev. Grp., 793 F.3d at 1333–34 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Thus, on the current record, Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that the claims of the ’820 patent are directed to an abstract idea under the first step of the Alice analysis.” slip op. at 20
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“application of an abstract idea. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78. Petitioner argues that the challenged claims have no such elements, because “the challenged claims add nothing more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity to the abstract idea of calculating a price.” Pet. 32–48. Patent Owner argues that the presence of the add-on computer software code limitations in the challenged claims transforms those claims into patent-eligible applications. Resp. 49–50. We are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims of the ’820 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.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 8,515,820 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · EnfishPatents in suitUS 8,515,820 - Google Inc. v. Patrick ZuiliAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 24, 2017 · CBM2016-00008 · APJ Stacey G White · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1, 5, 9, and 11 are unpatentable under § 101 and obvious over IAB 1 and IAB 2; claims 5 and 11 are also obvious over IAB 1, IAB 2, and Laurent.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“a first code on the server side computing device . . . sending said first code to said at least one device over a communication network. PO Resp. 144. According to Patent Owner, Petitioner “inconsistently pointed [] to cookies as constituting a first code,” and Patent Owner alleges that this is insufficient because claim 1 does not discuss cookies. Id. at 146. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner has equated code generation with cookies and that is improper because cookies are used only to store the code after it has been generated. Id. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s analysis. Petitioner’s declarant, Stephen Gray, asserts that “[c]ookies are set by servers that store the cookie in the client. That cookie is then transmitted back from the client to the server upon subsequent accesses by the user to the origin server that set the cookie.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 60. Gray opines that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that “when a user clicks a cookie-enabled website, a cookie is generated on the server and this cookie is stored on the client computer along with all of the information.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 105. We find that this comports with IAB 1’s description of measuring the number of visits to a web site by using a “Unique Cookie with Heuristic.” Ex. 1004, 5. IAB 1’s server stores “a small piece of information with a browser.” Id. IAB 2 notes that “[t]he web server responds to the user browser by checking for an existing cookie and creating one if one does not exist.” Ex. 1005, 27 (emphasis added). As described in the IAB references, cookies are designed to be unique to each browser, or if possible, the cookies should be unique to each user. Ex. 1004, 5, Ex. 1005, 21–22, 27. We find that these disclosures from IAB 1 and IAB 2 would have taught one of ordinary skill in the art the claimed first code.” slip op. at 32
- Skill levelOther
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“analyze patentability using the broadest reasonable construction of the claims in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)). Neither party makes an explicit claim construction argument in the proceeding. See generally PO Resp., Reply. For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 17
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionDecided for petitioner
“Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). Thus, we must determine whether the claims are directed to “longstanding conduct that existed well before the advent of computers and the Internet.” Id. at 1327. What we are presented with is a system for marking the occurrence of two events and making a determination about the validity of the second occurrence based on the time elapsed between occurrences. We find that this is a longstanding business practice as exemplified by Petitioner’s pharmacy example. See Pet. 47. Patent Owner asserts that the ’057 patent is different from the sort of fraud detection that may be performed by a pharmacist because the challenged claims are “able to handle millions of clicks in real time whether from the same or different users.” PO Resp. 90. We do not agree. The claims recite only two data points, a time associated with click one and a time associated with click two. Thus, a pharmacist comparing the dates or times for two prescription requests is performing the same comparison as the one recited in the claims. There is no requirement in the claims that the system be able to handle millions of data points. Further, there is no discussion of the determination being made in real time and to the contrary the specification states that “by observing a metric like the number of clicks for a given period of time, be it a short time or a longer period, such as a day or a week, the system can automatically determine if certain clicks are illegitimate.” Ex. 1001, 2:64‒3:2. In addition, while the claims recite the creation of codes and encoded codes none of this is used by the claimed method to perform its determination. That data merely is sent from one place to another while the system marks the time associated with a click. The only information used in the determination is the time of the two clicks. The claims are not directed to improving the function of the computer or its associated software; instead, they are directed to using a computer to perform a well-known business task. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”). Therefore, we are persuaded that the challenged claims are directed to a longstanding economic task and not to an improvement to the computer functionality itself. Cf. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016). For all of the foregoing reasons, we find that Petitioner has established that claims 1, 5, 9, and 11 are directed to an abstract idea.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 8,671,057 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · EnfishPatents in suitUS 8,671,057 - Salesforce.Com, Inc. v. Virtualagility, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 16, 2014 · CBM2013-00024 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–21 are unpatentable under §§ 101 and 102 over Ito; the contingent motion to amend with substitute claims 22–30 is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notTerm construed board ownPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“1. “system being implemented using a processor and a storage device accessible to the processor” The preamble of claim 1 recites a “system being implemented using a processor and a storage device.” Petitioner contends that the recited processor and storage device need not be components of the claimed system because they are not positively recited elements. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 39). We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s reasoning, because the processor and storage device recited in the preamble of each independent claim of the ’413 patent serve as the antecedent basis for “said processor” and “the storage device” recited in the body of each claim. Dec. to Inst. 18– 19 (citing C.W. Zumbiel Co., Inc., v. Kappos & Graphic Packaging Int’l, 702 F.3d 1371, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (noting that a preamble constitutes a limitation when the elements in the body of a claim depend on it for antecedent basis)). Furthermore, if the plain language of a claim indicates that a system is implemented by certain components, then those components constitute required parts of the system. “Implemented,” in that setting, can mean “constituted” or “formed.” Therefore, we construe the clause as setting forth that the processor and the storage device are both components of the claimed system.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the specification of the ’413 patent teaches that “model entity” is a set of assembled computer data or data item that represents fundamental components of a model. See Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 37–42. Patent Owner, however, does not (1) point to any disclosure in the specification that requires a data object to provide the capability for a user to perform specified operations on the model in order for the data object to qualify as a “model entity,” or (2) offer any persuasive evidence regarding the meaning of “model entity.” Therefore, we construe the phrase “model entity” as “a set of assembled computer data or data item that represents fundamental components of a model.”” slip op. at 14
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. “[I]t is important at the outset to identify and define whatever fundamental concept appears wrapped up in the claim so that the subsequent analytical steps can proceed on a consistent footing.” CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (plurality opinion). Here, the challenged claims are directed to a representation of a model for use in processing management information of a collaborative activity. Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 37–47. To aid in the management of a collaborative activity (e.g., developing customer relationships), a computer database is created that represents a model of the collaborative activity. Ex. 1004, 116. The model includes model entities (e.g., goals and projects) organized into a plurality of hierarchies (e.g., goals to be done and project hierarchy for doing them, or domain hierarchy of functional areas) having a plurality of types. Id.; see also Ex. 1001, Fig. 3 (hierarchy of goals and projects), Fig. 8 (hierarchy of domains). The model may contain data such as the customer segment, products, needs, etc. Ex. 1001, col. 2, l. 60– col. 3, l. 16. A processor provides a graphical user interface (“GUI”) for interaction with a user. Ex. 1004, p. 0116; see Ex. 1001, Fig. 9 (GUI displaying goals belonging to a domain). Therefore, given this disclosure, we find that the challenged claims are directed to an abstract idea, the creation and use of models to aid in processing management information by organizing and making the information readily accessible by the collaborators of the project. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 2, l. 9–col. 5, l. 8. The model, as described by the specification, is a disembodied concept that is not tied to a specific algorithm or specialized computer. Thus, at the first step of the analysis, we determine the claims at issue here are directed to a patent-ineligible concept: an abstract idea.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 8,095,413 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipationcites Alice · MayoPatents in suitUS 8,095,413
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.