- DISH Network Corporation / DISH Network L.L.C. v. Customedia Technologies, L.L.C.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 25, 2018 · CBM2017-00032 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6–7, 16–19, 23–24, 26–28, 32–36, and 41 are unpatentable under § 101; the petitioner did not show claims 17, 18, 23, 24, and 28 unpatentable under § 112.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenOther
“Considering each claim limitation, as well as each explicit citation to the specification expressly set forth in the Petition, we are persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, via analysis and evidence explicitly set forth on pages 6–7 of the Petition, that independent claim 1, as a whole, does not recite a technological feature that is novel or unobvious.” slip op. at 22
- Adverse judgmentOther
“Response (Paper 24, “PO Resp.”) and disclaimed claims 5, 25, 39, and 43 (Ex. 2006). Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 38, “Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 40, “PO Sur”), and Petitioner filed a Response to the Sur-Reply (Paper 41, “Pet. Sur”).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“II. ANALYSIS A. Claim Construction Petitioner and Patent Owner dispute the construction of certain claim terms. Pet. 23–28; PO Resp. 34–46. We apply the constructions of those terms set forth in Paper 49 in this decision.” slip op. at 7
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“We agree. The preambles of independent claims 1, 19, and 33 expressly state as much. In particular, the preamble of claims 1 and 33 provide: “A system for providing targeted advertising to a multimedia content end user” (claim 1) or “a plurality of multimedia content end users” (claim 33). Ex. 1003, 46:13–14, 49:59–60. Likewise, claim 19’s preamble refers to “[a] device for providing targeted advertising to an end user.” Id. at 48:20–21. Taking claim 1 as a representative example, the remainder of the claim recites certain tangible components, namely a “storage device” and specifically, an “addressable and reserved storage space”; a “processor”; and “software implemented by” the processor. Id. at 46:13–28. The claim further requires the following functionalities: the processor “reserv[ing]” the storage space; the processor “select[ing] particular advertising data suitable for targeting to at least one end user based upon predefined criteria data”; the storage space “storing digital advertising data” and specifically, the “particular advertising data”; and the “particular advertising data” being “accessible to” the user. Id. Thus, we are persuaded that claim 1, taken as a whole, is focused on the concept of providing targeted advertising to a user. Further, the claims merely invoke computers as a tool to implement the concept of targeted advertising, and are not directed to any improvement in computer functionality. See Pet. 34; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 944–945. The claims recite generic components and functionality. For example, in claim 1, the required components, outlined above—a storage device and specifically, a storage space, a processor, and software— are conventional. The recited functionalities—reserving the storage space for advertising data, selecting advertising data targeted to a user, storing that data, and making that data accessible to the user—are likewise basic and routine. As Petitioner points out, the specification expressly acknowledges that some of the tangible components of the recited system were known. See Pet. 7–8, 33–34, 40–75; Ex. 1008 ¶ 949. For instance, the specification refers to storage device 14 as “any medium known in the art for storing electronic data” and similarly, “any storage device for audio/video information known in the art.” Ex. 1003, 13:22–28, 15:1–5, 24:66–25:7; see id. at [57], 5:3–6, 21:42–22:2. The testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Negus, also persuade us that each recited component and functionality was generic, conventional, and known. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 945, 949–954; see id. ¶¶ 955–987.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 9,053,494 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Mayo · EnfishPatents in suitUS 9,053,494 - American Simmental Association v. Leachman Cattle Of Colorado, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 13, 2016 · PGR2015-00005 · APJ Michael W Kim · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are held unpatentable under § 101; claims 1–4, 8–12, and 14–19 are also obvious over Wang alone. The motion to amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Ultimately, we discern that Petitioner and Patent Owner are not very far apart. On education, we agree with Petitioner that evaluating genetic quality is sufficiently complex that it would require, at a minimum, a Master’s Degree in the field. On work experience, we agree with both parties that several years of experience in the field is necessary, with the optimum for a Master’s Degree being five years, and commensurately less for an individual possessing a PhD. We agree with Patent Owner that some understanding of economics and software is required, but agree with Petitioner that such understanding need only be a basic one that can be readily acquired through work experience in the field, with no formal education in that field being necessary. Finally, we disagree with Patent Owner that formal training or experience specific to the feeder calf market needs to be addressed separately, as, for the reasons set forth below, we are unpersuaded that evaluating feeder calves as a subgroup differs materially from evaluation of cattle overall, and that one of ordinary skill in evaluating of genetic quality of cattle generally would not have been familiar with feeder calves specifically, especially when the overwhelming goal of cattle production is to sell beef, of which the primary type sold is feeder calves. Perhaps more importantly, the significance of the level of ordinary skill in the art here is the role it plays in an obviousness analysis, and Patent Owner has not explained in a sufficiently persuasive manner how the disparate definitions impact dispositively the obviousness analysis. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he level of skill in the art is a prism or lens through which a judge, jury, or the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention.”); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”). Accordingly, unless expressly indicated otherwise, we determine that a specific finding on the level of skill in the art is not required, because the prior art itself reflects an appropriate skill level. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“3. “genetic merit scorecard” Each of independent claims 1, 8, and 14 recite “genetic merit scorecard.” Petitioner asserts that “genetic merit scorecard” should be construed as “visual display of genetic merit information.” Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1001). Patent Owner does not dispute this construction. PO Resp. 23–26. After considering all evidence and assertions concerning this claim construction, we agree with Petitioner that “genetic merit scorecard” should be construed as “visual display of genetic merit information.”” slip op. at 11
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“Owner are rooted sufficiently in the express claim language, and in any case, are peripheral to the above-identified fundamental concept, in that while they may represent variations of the fundamental concept, we are unpersuaded that they alter materially the fundamental concept itself. For example, being “dynamic,” while perhaps placing some temporal aspects on “determining an animal’s relative economic value based on its genetic and physical traits,” does not alter the fact that independent claim 1 is fundamentally directed to “determining an animal’s relative economic value based on its genetic and physical traits.” A similar analysis is applicable to “sale group of feeder calves,” “disparate sources,” and “transforming.” The Specification further supports Petitioner’s argument. The “Field of the Invention” section set forth in the ’557 patent reads as follows: Embodiments of the present invention relate generally to the field of genetic quality and relative market value of livestock. More specifically, embodiments of the present invention facilitate an owner or potential buyer of one or more sale groups of livestock to evaluate the relative market value of the sale groups based on predictions derived from genetic merit estimates of the herd. Ex. 1001, 1:23–29. The “Description of Related Art” section that follows delves heavily into problems associated with determining what the actual value of the livestock is, and more specifically what premium or discount the livestock should command based on these desired genetic merits. Ex. 1001, 1:47–49. The first three sentences of the “Summary” section then read as follows: The Applicants recognize the importance of determining relative market value of a sale group or a group of animals offered for sale from a livestock operation. Various embodiments of methods and apparatus for determining relative market value of a sale group are provided herein. Exemplary embodiments of the present invention include an online genetic merit scorecard system. Ex. 1001, 2:6–12. Based on the above cited portions of the ’557 patent, we determine that the Specification supports heavily Petitioner’s proposed fundamental concept. The unambiguous disclosure in the Specification as to the nature of the invention indicates to us that Petitioner has not over-generalized here.” slip op. at 16
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“PO Resp. 66. However, we are unpersuaded that (a) valuing a group of animals is “significantly more” than valuing a single animal, (b) tailoring a price to a user is “significantly more,” and (c) comparison shopping is “significantly more,” whether taken in succession or as a whole. Indeed, these requirements appear to be routine parts of commerce involving the fundamental concept of “determining an animal’s relative economic value based on its genetic and physical traits.” Patent Owner asserts additionally that the claimed invention does not merely recite the alleged abstract idea and say “apply it” on computer components, because the recited computer components are an integral part of rooting the invention in computer technology. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the claimed invention involves novel technical software that “transforms genetic and performance information associated with the sale group into a dynamically-generated scorecard available to users on-demand.” PO Resp. 67. We disagree, as the recitation of software in the claim, if any at all, is at a highly abstract level, in that the claims recite no more than taking in and outputting data, with no detail as to how that data is manipulated between input and output.5 Absent such detail, we are unpersuaded that the claims are reciting any more than “applying to software” the fundamental concept of “determining an animal’s relative economic value based on its genetic and physical traits,” which is not “significantly more.” As for “dynamically-generated scorecard available to users on-demand,” our analysis of the same in the abstract idea prong of Alice is equally applicable here, namely, that 5 “MR. COHN: Your Honor, the little calculator that’s in Windows is a dynamic calculator. It’s been there for 25, 30 years. You pull it up. You type in five times two and you hit equals and it spits the answer back to you on demand right there.” Tr. 85:24–86:2. we are unpersuaded that “dynamic” and “on-demand” are sufficiently related to the claims. Patent Owner cites DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014) in support of their position, but it is precisely because of the instructive nature of the problem-solution approach in that case that we arrive at our conclusion here. Specifically, DDR Holdings held that the “problem of retaining website visitors” involves a “claimed solution [that] is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” DDR Holdings, LLC, 773 F.3d at 1257. Such is not the case here, where the problem, as clearly articulated above in the aforementioned portions of the Specification, is “determining an animal’s relative economic value based on its genetic and physical traits.” We are unpersuaded that this problem, or its solution, involves or requires anything computer-related. 4. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has shown, by a” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 8,725,557 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · MayoPatents in suitUS 8,725,557 - American Simmental Association v. Leachman Cattle Of Colorado, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 13, 2016 · PGR2015-00003 · APJ Michael W Kim · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable under § 101; the obviousness grounds were not proven because the Angus system was not established as prior art and Wang alone did not disclose the online scorecard.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Ultimately, we discern that Petitioner and Patent Owner are not very far apart. On education, we agree with Petitioner that evaluating genetic quality is sufficiently complex that it would require, at a minimum, a Master’s Degree in the field. On work experience, we agree with both parties that several years of experience in the field is necessary, with the optimum for a Master’s Degree being five years, and commensurately less for an individual possessing a PhD. We agree with Patent Owner that some understanding of economics and software is required, but agree with Petitioner that such understanding need only be a basic one that can be readily acquired through work experience in the field, with no formal education in that field being necessary. Finally, we disagree with Patent Owner that formal training or experience specific to the feeder calf market needs to be addressed separately, as, for the reasons set forth below, we are unpersuaded that evaluating feeder calves as a subgroup differs materially from evaluation of cattle overall, and that one of ordinary skill in evaluating of genetic quality of cattle generally would not have been familiar with feeder calves specifically, especially when the overwhelming goal of cattle production is to sell beef, of which the primary type sold is feeder calves.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“implicitly asserting that “market value of any other market group” only makes sense if it is the “national market average value.” PO Resp. 55–56. We disagree. The claim limitation itself reads “relative market value,” and does not include either the “national” or “average,” and the aforementioned portion of the ’888 7 Divorced from surrounding claim language, we construe “relative market value” as “the market value of something as compared to the market value of any other market group.” patent discloses expressly that “relative market value may be expressed in various ways,” providing a non-limiting example of at least “the market value of a sale group that represents the average progeny of all registered bulls in the country or market region.” Also through their assertions concerning the prior art, Patent Owner appears to be implicitly asserting that by including the phrase “any other market group,” any values used to calculate the “relative market value” must be of a format that is standardized to allow comparisons across all other market groups, for example, across different breeds. PO Resp. 52–56. We disagree. Neither the express claim language nor the aforementioned portion of the ’888 patent requires that any values used to calculate the recited “relative market value,” or even the “relative market value” itself, be comparable across all market groups. Certainly calculating a value of one breed that is of a format that allows direct comparisons to a value of any other breed would appear to be more useful. The claim language itself, however, does not require such a result. For example, even if any values are only applicable to one specific breed, so long as there are two different market groups of that specific breed that are compared using that format, the value resulting from that comparison would still meet the recited “relative market value.” To eliminate any such confusion, we modify the aforementioned construction of “relative market value,” in the context of the aforementioned surrounding claim language, as follows: “the market value of a sale group as compared to the market value of at least one other market group.”” slip op. at 9
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“determine that its corroborative value is compromised by a variety of factors, to the point where we determine that it does not provide sufficient corroboration for Ms. Kurtz’s testimony that the document and the information it contains was available online at least as early as June 8, 2011. As an initial matter, we find that Exhibit 1014 was generated after every possible priority date. Ex. 2033, 57:7–58:6 (Ms. Kurtz testified, concerning Exhibit 1014, that “[i]t was actually printed last year is when I sent those to counsel.”) We find further that in attempting to make sense of the dates of the various documents, Ms. Kurtz had to consult the “IS department,” which also weighs against her testimony that she was personally aware that “[t]he revision date is the date on which Angus, through AngusSource, began providing electronic marketing documents to the public which have the same form, layout, and data as shown in Angus 2.” Ex. 1011 ¶ 6; Ex. 2033, 27:14– 28:2. We find additionally that changes were made at various times to the website on which Exhibit 1014 resides, and there is no definitive evidence presented in this proceeding as to which changes were made at which time. Ex. 2033, 28:8–31:6, 45:14–17, 46:1–47:7. To be sure, we find Ms. Kurtz to be credible, in that after reviewing all of the deposition testimony, we find that she was honest and sincere in trying to provide the most accurate information possible. The problem, however, is that her statement in the Declaration at paragraph 6, that she was personally aware that Exhibit 1014 existed in its exact form prior to every effective date, is in conflict with her testimony on cross-examination that she had to consult the IS department concerning the mechanics of the dates printed in Exhibit 1014, and that the format of Exhibit 1014 may have been altered between every possible priority date and the time that Exhibit 1014 was printed. Accordingly, given the weak corroborative value of Exhibit 1013, and the now-discounted corroborative value of Exhibit 1014, we conclude that Exhibits 1013 and 1014, collectively, do not constitute sufficient evidence to corroborate the Declaration of Ms. Kurtz that the Angus system is prior art.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Wang and the Angus system as corresponding to the recited “online genetic merit scorecard.” Pet. 56–58, 61–65, 68–71; see also Pet. Reply 20–21. As set forth above, we determined that Petitioner has not met its burden of showing that the Angus system is prior art. Accordingly, Petitioner must rely on Wang alone for the “online genetic merit scorecard.” Aside from the Angus system, Petitioner relies on paragraphs 11, 14, and 72 of Wang (Ex. 1004) for disclosing an “online genetic merit scorecard.” Pet. 57–58. We have considered paragraphs 11, 14, and 72 of Wang, and find that while they do provide disclosure that corresponds properly to “genetic merit scorecard,” construed above as “visual display of genetic merit information,” Petitioner has not pointed to any disclosure or provided any analysis, unrelated to the Angus system, concerning the “online” aspect of “online genetic merit scorecard.” To be sure, at a high level, the fact that the “genetic merit scorecard” may be “online” seems like a relatively minor distinction, especially given that the ’888 patent has an earliest possible priority date of April 13, 2013. Furthermore, it is unclear how much weight should be given to “online,” in that it is possible that any computer output, in a sense, can be considered capable of being placed “online.” Additionally, Wang does provide some disclosure that a computer is connected to databases, and that the computer is used to “generate the output rankings and individual animal estimated breeding values” (Ex. 1004 ¶ 11, 14), which could, perhaps, be enough to be considered “online.” Petitioner, however, has not advanced any of the above assertions, nor provided evidence in support thereof. See 35 U.S.C. § 326(e) (“In a post-grant review instituted under this chapter, the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.”) Absent such assertions or evidence, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the “online” aspect of “online genetic merit scorecard,” as recited in each of independent claims 1, 9, and 16, is obvious in view of Wang alone.10” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 8,660,888 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,660,888 - Carecloud Corporation v. Athenahealth, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 18, 2015 · CBM2014-00143 · APJ Richard E Rice · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable under § 101 as directed to ineligible subject matter; obviousness was not shown for claims 1–3, 5, 8, 11–13, 15, 17, 18, and 20.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“Neither party proposes any change to the interpretations set forth above, and our review of the evidence does not indicate that any change is necessary. Consequently, we maintain our interpretations. Patent Owner proposes constructions for two additional claim terms— “rule” and “database.” PO Resp. 10. With respect to “rule,” Patent Owner proposes the definition set forth expressly in the Specification, i.e., “a rule is coded logic that evaluates data and then performs an action.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 5:59–60). Petitioner does not dispute Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “rule,” and we agree that it is the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. For the claim term “database,” Patent Owner relies on Mr. Goodin’s statement, based on a dictionary definition, that a “database” is a “collection of data with a given structure for accepting, storing, and providing, on demand, data for multiple users.” Id. (citing Ex. 2012 ¶ 44); see Ex. 2015, 21. We note Mr. Goodin’s additional testimony that a POSA “would understand a ‘database’ is a stored collection of data” (Ex. 2012 ¶ 45), and that the Specification “contrasts a database, consisting of stored data, which can be updated on demand, with a set of rules that are hard coded into a software application” (id. ¶ 46, citing Ex. 1001, 6:27–28). Petitioner does not propose a construction for “database” or challenge Mr. Goodin’s testimony, discussed above. Based on the above, we determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification of “database” is a stored collection of data that can be updated on demand.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Bergeron, provides the following definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”): [A] POSA in the 2000 time frame would have had a Bachelor’s degree in computer science or the equivalent, or commensurate industry experience of at least four to five years of experience with computer programming and general knowledge of database technologies and networking or similar fields. A POS[A] in the 2000 time frame would also have at least two years of experience in the healthcare, or healthcare-related, industry. Ex. 1013 ¶ 16. Patent Owner’s Declarant, Dr. Goodin, agrees with Dr. Bergeron’s definition (Ex. 2012 ¶ 41). We agree with and adopt this definition for the purposes of our Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 8
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“On this record, we are persuaded that claims 1–20 are directed to the broad concept of scrubbing medical claims before submission, i.e., pre- processing medical claims to identify and correct errors. See Pet. 16; Pet. Reply 3. In particular, the patent claims all require automatically interacting with the completed claim submission by the medical practice management server to correct an error in the completed claim submission, wherein the error is resolved by the medical practice client before processing the completed claim submission, by applying one or more rules from a class of rules associated with the payor server, wherein the one or more rules comprises a new rule, an updated rule, or both received from the payor server. Ex. 1001, 20:12–20 (claim 1), 22:24–32 (claim 18), 23:11–19 (claim 20) (emphases added). Further, the concept of scrubbing medical claims before submission is consistent with the ’116 Patent Specification, which explains: “Given the extent of wasted time and money associated with the process [for filing and processing health insurance claims], there exists a need to manage a medical practice in a more efficient manner and [to] provide insurance claims with fewer or no errors.” Id. at 1:64–67. According to the Specification, “[t]he present invention automatically and repeatedly interacts with an insurance company system and/or applies rules to efficiently manage a medical practice and provide insurance claims with a reduced number of errors.” Id. at 2:3–6. In a preferred embodiment, rules engine 60 applies rules to the claim entry form and thereby “scrubs” the claim before submission. Id. at 13:31–59; see Ex. 1001, 13:33–34, Fig. 3F (“The rules engine 60 ‘scrubs’ the claim (step 390), or examines the claim for claim errors.”); Pet. 28 n.2. Given these disclosures, we are unpersuaded that any specific claim limitations need to be added to the above articulated abstract concept, as we discern that they merely provide support to the abstract concept of scrubbing medical claims before submission. Despite Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary, we see little difference between scrubbing medical claims before submission and the type of fundamental economic practice considered to be an abstract idea by the Supreme Court in Alice.1 As established by the record, scrubbing medical claims before submission is a practice that existed long before the ’116 Patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:31–40; Ex. 1012, 2:27–39; Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 33–34; Ex. 1024,2 107–108; Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 10–12, 14, 27. That the claims recite using a database of updated rules, multiple computers, and a claim edit screen, for scrubbing medical claims before submission, does not render the claims any less abstract. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (US), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that “while the claims recite budgeting using a ‘communication medium’ (broadly including 1 In Alice, 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. 134 S. Ct. at 2356. The Supreme Court also determined that “[l]ike the risk hedging in Bilski [Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)], the concept of intermediated settlement is ‘a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce.’” 134 S. Ct. at 2356 (citations omitted). With respect to the first step of the “Mayo framework,” the Supreme Court concluded in Alice that “there is no meaningful distinction between the concept of risk hedging in Bilski and the concept of intermediated settlement” in Alice, and that “[b]oth are squarely within the realm of ‘abstract ideas’ as we have used that term.” Alice., 134 S. Ct. at 2357. 2 Bringing Health Care Online: The Role of Information Technologies, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (Sept. 1995). the Internet and telephone networks), that limitation does not render the claims any less abstract”). We conclude, therefore, that Petitioner has demonstrated that the ʼ116 Patent claims, like the claims in Alice, are directed to an abstract idea, namely, scrubbing medical claims before submission.” slip op. at 14
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“For reasons that parallel those articulated by the Federal Circuit in Intellectual Ventures I, we determine, contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, that claims 1–20 of the ’116 Patent do not incorporate an inventive concept. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355; Intellectual Ventures I, 792 F.3d at 1368–70. Rather, the steps and limitations in the claims, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination, amount to a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358. Like the claims at issue in Alice and Intellectual Ventures I, the ’116 Patent claims all recite generic computer elements (servers, rules, database, interactive screen, etc.) performing generic computer tasks such as storing rules in a database, receiving data, performing automated operations, and transmitting data. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 20:2–42 (claim 1); see Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359; Intellectual Ventures I, 792 F.3d at 1368, 1370; Ex. 1001, 4:27–57 (servers), 5:60–61 (rule), 5:66–6:8 (rules database), 14:62–65 (interactive screen); Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 54, 56, 57, 62; Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 22– 27; Ex. 2011, 158:23–159:5; Ex. 2024, 94:4–17. Patent Owner’s argument, on page 76 of the Response, that the claims” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 7,617,116 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,617,116 - Google Inc. v. Unwired Planet, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 6, 2015 · CBM2014-00006 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 25–29 are unpatentable under § 101; claim 25 is also unpatentable as obvious over Havinis ’931 and Leonhardt, and Landgren and Leonhardt.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“reasoning with rational underpinning to combine Havinis ’931 and Leonhardt. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). For instance, Petitioner states: [a] person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to modify the system of Havinis ’931 to include Leonhardt’s location access policies, in order to further Havinis ’931’s goals of managing positioning requests sent by Location Applications such that location services can be tailored individually to meet the needs of the mobile device user. Pet. 59 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:33–40). Relying on Dr. Cox, Petitioner adds that this modification “would have been nothing more than the application of a known method of privacy management to achieve a predictable result.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 76. As explained in our Decision to Institute, we are persuaded the rationale set forth by Petitioner and Dr. Cox is reasonable. See Dec. 24–25. Subsequent to our preliminary finding, Patent Owner has provided no evidence or argument to the contrary. Thus, after once again evaluating Petitioner’s arguments and supporting evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have been obvious to combine the relied upon teachings of Havinis ’931 and Leonhardt. We conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 25 of the ’752 Patent would have been obvious over Havinis ’931 and Leonhardt.” slip op. at 13
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable
“We are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the ’752 patent fails to provide sufficient written description support for the notifying limitation. Petitioner’s only evidence that the notifying limitation is not sufficiently supported is its argument that the ’752 patent fails to explicitly describe notifying the wireless device that access to the location information was denied. Pet. 44–45. Petitioner proffers testimony from Dr. Cox parroting, almost word for word, the argument in Petitioner’s brief. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 24–36. This argument and testimony, however, does not speak to the correct standard—whether the ’752 specification “reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Moreover, “the disclosure as originally filed does not . . . have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue,” nor must it describe “every conceivable and possible future embodiment of [the] invention.” Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc., 339 F.3d 1352, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). We agree with Patent Owner, that the ’752 patent broadly describes notifying the wireless device at any time during the described process. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 9:26–29 (“the system described herein is for a subscriber to receive a notification on their wireless communications device whenever a location request is made by any client application”). Moreover, as pointed out by Petitioner, the ’752 patent describes sending “denied access” messages to client applications. See Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1001, 11:40–42). Based on these disclosures, we are persuaded that the ’752 patent provides broad support for providing notifications of various messages to different elements of the system at multiple points in the described process. Petitioner has not pointed to anything in the ’752 patent specification that clearly limits what messages can be sent to the various elements or when they can be sent. In fact, as Patent Owner points out, the Provisional Application explicitly contemplates “initiat[ing] a dialogue with the subscriber regarding permission for a location request.” Ex. 1020, 22. Although Petitioner complains that this disclosure does not describe how a dialogue would occur or how messages are relayed (Reply 5), we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would disbelieve, based on the entirety of the ’752 patent disclosure, that the inventor had possession of sending an access denied message to the wireless device at the appropriate time during the process. Thus, we are persuaded that the ’752 patent “provides ample support for the breadth” of the notifying limitation and does not “unambiguously limit” its meaning to a narrower embodiment (e.g., notifying the wireless device only when a request has been made). Cordis, 339 F.3d at 1365. Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the ’752 patent fails to support the notifying limitation.” slip op. at 20
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, specifically, the abstract idea of controlling access to location information using a subscriber profile. The preambles and all claim limitations of both claims support this abstract idea, and the ’752 patent repeatedly discloses that the invention is directed to controlling access to location information. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:14–19, 1:60–2:7. Patent Owner has not identified any portion of the ’752 patent inconsistent with this abstract idea, and we are persuaded that the identified abstract idea is similar to the kind of “organizing human activity” at issue in Bilski and Alice. See, e.g., Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App’x 1005, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (comparing “methods and systems for managing a game of Bingo” to the kind of “organizing human activity” at issue in Bilski and Alice).” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,203,752 unpatentable§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · KSRPatents in suitUS 7,203,752
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.