- J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / Jpmorgan Chase Bank, Nat’L Ass’N et al. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 12, 2016 · CBM2014-00157 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–11, 13–21, 24–27, 29, 30, 32, 33, and 36–39 are unpatentable under § 101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“II. ANALYSIS A. Real Party-in-Interest Patent Owner argues, as it did in its Preliminary Response, that the Petition does not identify all real parties-in-interest because the Petition does not identify IBM as a real party-in-interest. PO Resp. 63–65; Prelim. Resp. 45–47; see 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(2); 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1). We discern no difference between Patent Owner’s arguments in the Preliminary Response and those in the Response. Compare PO Resp. 63–65, with Prelim. Resp. 45–47. Therefore, we incorporate our previous analysis (Inst. Dec. 8), and determine that Patent Owner has not come forward with sufficient evidence to call into question Petitioner’s identification of the real party-in-interest.” slip op. at 7
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“E. Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence Petitioner moves to exclude Exhibit 2011 as irrelevant, lacking foundation, and as hearsay under Federal rules of Evidence 401, 402, 602, and 802. Paper 29, 3–4. We do not rely on Exhibit 2011. Accordingly, we dismiss Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude as moot.” slip op. at 34
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s proposed construction for the term “access mechanism” is “hardware and/or software for controlling access to data.” Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1002, 8; Ex. 1003, 6; Ex. 1001, 10:1–4, 15:31–32); see Inst. Dec. 9. Petitioner’s claim construction for “access mechanism” is consistent with the ’409 Patent Specification, which discloses access mechanism 114 as including processing unit 154, ROM 156, RAM 158, I/O controller 165, non-volatile memory 160, hard disk 162, encryption hardware 168, and tamper detect mechanism 169. Ex. 1001, 15:41–59, 15:65–16:5, 17:1–3, Fig. 8. Therefore, for purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested construction of access mechanism as the broadest reasonable interpretation. Petitioner’s proposed construction for “internal rule built in the access mechanism” is a rule “integrated into the access mechanism.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002, 7; Ex. 1003, 5); see Inst. Dec. 9. Petitioner’s claim construction for “internal rule built in the access mechanism” is consistent with the ’409 Patent Specification which discloses “the access mechanism may be supplied with a set of rules built-in,” “that can or cannot be overruled by rules provided with packaged data.” Ex. 1001, 34:29–33; see also id. at 34:34–43. Accordingly, for purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested construction of internal rule built in the access mechanism as the broadest reasonable interpretation.” slip op. at 8
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“and Alice analysis. The Federal Circuit has rejected similar arguments. See Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715 (“We do not agree . . . that the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea necessarily turns an abstraction into something concrete.”). Ultramercial, like Patent Owner, argued its claims were not directed to the type of abstract idea at issue in Alice that was “routine,” “long prevalent,” or “conventional,” but were directed to a specific method that was previously unknown and never employed before. Id. at 714. The court rejected Ultramercial’s argument and characterized it as follows: In other words, Ultramercial argues that the Supreme Court directs us to use a type of 103 analysis when assessing patentability so as to avoid letting § 101 “swallow all of patent law.” Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354. According to Ultramercial, abstract ideas remain patent-eligible under § 101 as long as they are new ideas, not previously well known, and not routine activity. Id. Based on the record before us, we are persuaded by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1, as a whole, is directed to an abstract idea and therefore is patent-ineligible under § 101. Petitioner asserts dependent claims 2–5 and independent claims 21, 24, 25, 30, 32, 33, 36, and 38 are drawn to the same abstract idea as claim 1. Pet. 42–45, 55–56, 58–61, 62– 64. Patent Owner acknowledges that claim 1 is representative of the independent claims (PO Resp. 37), and does not address separately independent claims 21, 24, 25, 30, 32, 33, 36, and 38, and dependent claims 2–5. Accordingly, based on the record before us and for the same reasons as claim 1, we are persuaded by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2– 5, 21, 24, 25, 30, 32, 33, 36, and 38, each as a whole, are directed an abstract idea under § 101, and therefore directed to patent- ineligible subject matter under § 101. b. Step Two – Elements or Combination of Elements Sufficient to Ensure the” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 6,314,409 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · BilskiPatents in suitUS 6,314,409 - Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. v. Mymedicalrecords, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 26, 2015 · CBM2015-00022 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 8–12 are unpatentable under § 101 as directed to nonstatutory subject matter; the Board did not reach the anticipation or obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenUnpatentable
“Second, we consider the challenged claims as an ordered combination. Id. at 2359. On this record, when viewed as a whole, the challenged claims 8–12 simply recite the concept of user management performed by a generic computer. The challenged claims, for example, do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they improve another technology or technical field. Petitioner additionally relies on the Declaration of Dr. Bysinger (Pet. 20–28), who testifies that the recited elements including “server,” “storing files . . . in a computer readable storage medium,” and “user interface on a computing device” were well-known conventional concepts in 2005. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 30–32. Dr. Bysinger additionally states “the abstract idea of privately accessing and managing patient medical records . . . [has] existed since at least the promulgation of HIPAA.” Id. ¶ 33. We credit Dr. Bysinger’s statements because they are consistent with the challenged claims. Challenged dependent claims 9–12 add nothing that alters the above analysis under § 101. Claims 9, 10, 11, and 12 recite additional limitations, such as wherein the access information comprises a password, receiving files from a second provider, wherein the files comprise image format files including wills and powers of attorney, respectively. Based on the present record, these comprise either generic limitations, such as using a password for access or sending a file in a known image format, or they relate to organizing human activities, such as user management of legal and financial documents, in addition to health records. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 8–12 of the ’466 Patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter.” slip op. at 11
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“Petitioner asserts that claims 8–12 of the ’466 Patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because they are directed to the abstract concept of allowing individuals to manage and access their health records and other medical or legal files privately. Pet. 19. We agree with Petitioner that the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea: privately managing files by the user. The preamble and all claim limitations of the challenged claims support this view of the claims, and the ’466 Patent consistently describes the invention as allowing an individual to control access to their medical records. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 5:21–23. Management or control by the user or patient rather than by the health care provider is a method of organizing a human activity. On this record, the concept is an abstract idea, just like the basic hedging concept at issue in Bilski and the abstract idea of intermediated settlement in Alice.3” slip op. at 8
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“We conclude that receiving and sending data is a routine and conventional computer function. As explained in Alice, “use of a computer to obtain data . . . and issue automated instructions . . . are ‘well-understood, routine, conventional actitiv[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. 2359; see also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”). Restricting access by password also is routine and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 712–13, 717 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (determining that representative claim 1 is patent ineligible although it recites “a fourth step of restricting general public access.”). Similarly, providing a user interface is an insignificant activity. See Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (determining that claim 1 is patent ineligible although it recites a “claim folder,” which “manages claim information . . . by providing a structured and easy to use interface.”). Claim 8 includes additional recitations relating to how data is stored and managed on the server. We determine that these limitations recite generic functions performed by a generic server and computing device. Storing files is a basic computer function. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (“Using a computer to create and maintain ‘shadow’ accounts amounts to electronic recordkeeping—one of the most basic functions of a computer.”). Additionally, regarding the recitation in challenged claim 8 of “wherein the files are maintained on the server independently from any files maintained by the health care provider” (Ex. 1001, 17:18–19 (emphasis added)), we note the representative claim in Alice had a similar recitation. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352. In particular, in Alice, the representative claim included the following:” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner additionally relies on the Declaration of Dr. Bysinger (Pet. 20–28), who testifies that the recited elements including “server,” “storing files . . . in a computer readable storage medium,” and “user interface on a computing device” were well-known conventional concepts in 2005. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 30–32. Dr. Bysinger additionally states “the abstract idea of privately accessing and managing patient medical records . . . [has] existed since at least the promulgation of HIPAA.” Id. ¶ 33. We credit Dr. Bysinger’s statements because they are consistent with the challenged claims.” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 8,301,466 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · BilskiPatents in suitUS 8,301,466 - Google Inc. v. Unwired Planet, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 6, 2015 · CBM2014-00004 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 21 and 22 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract idea implemented using generic, conventional technology.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“term “SRC.” The ’151 patent does, however, give some context from which to discern the meaning of the term. For example, the ’151 patent states that “[t]he term ‘SRC technology,’ as used herein, may include any short-range radio communications technology now existing or yet to be developed, including, for example, radio frequency identification (‘RFID’), IEEE 802.15 (‘Bluetooth’), and IEEE 802.11 (‘WiFi’), among others.” Id. at 2:60–65; see also id. at 2:9–18 (describing “SRC device[s]” and “SRC-enabled mobile terminals” as including RFID, Bluetooth, and WiFi related devices). Moreover, the ’151 patent describes several embodiments of the invention. The first embodiment involves an RFID system. Id. at 3:7–8. The second embodiment is described as a “hybrid system” using “Bluetooth, WiFi, WiMAX, or any other wireless protocol” to connect with an RFID reader. Id. at 4:19–34. Based on this disclosure, it is clear that “SRC,” as used in the ’151 patent, encompasses communications at a range used by the technologies named in the specification—RFID, Bluetooth, and WiFi—and other short-range radio communication technologies. The question is whether the” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“extrinsic evidence, including testimony from Dr. Georgios B. Giannakis. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 21–25. Dr. Giannakis testifies that SRC has a well-understood meaning in the art of “a nominal range of 100 meters or less, such as used by practical systems performing typical applications of RFID, Bluetooth, and Wi-Fi communications.” Id. ¶ 22. Moreover, Dr. Giannakis testifies that all three examples of SRC technologies listed by the ’151 patent have “a practical upper range in a typical deployment that is nominally 100 meters or less.” Id. ¶ 24. An expert’s opinion, however, is only as good as the facts upon which it is based. Dr. Giannakis points to no factual support for his specific numeric conclusions on this issue. See id. ¶¶ 22–24. We, therefore, give very little weight to Dr. Giannakis’s testimony concluding that the term SRC, as used in the ’151 patent, includes a specific upper bound of 100 meters. See Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“Lack of factual support for expert opinion going to factual determinations . . . may render the testimony of little probative value in a validity determination.”).” slip op. at 8
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable
“Although a term may be relative, it is not necessarily indefinite. Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“That some claim language may not be precise, however, does not automatically render a claim invalid.”). We are persuaded a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that short-range communication covers a communication range “shorter” than the range covered by mobile networks. See Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 720 F.3d 1361, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (affirming the district court’s finding not indefinite the term “short-range communication protocol,” which was construed to mean “a set of procedures required to initiate and maintain short-range communication between two or more devices” where short-range communications similarly included Bluetooth and WiFi technologies, but did not include a numeric upper bound on range), cert. granted in-part on other grounds, 135 S.Ct. 752 (U.S. Dec. 5, 2014) (No. 13-896). The ’151 patent expressly describes mobile networks as including “cellular networks such as Global System for Mobile Communications (‘GSM’), Time Division Multiple Access (‘TDMA’), Code Division Multiple Access (‘CDMA’), and Personal Communications Service (‘PCS’) networks.” Ex. 1001, 2:53–58; see PO Resp. 19. It also describes interoperability between the various systems, contrasting them by size. For example, in describing the problems encountered when locating mobile terminals, the Specification describes “cell sizes [that] have grown to cover up to 20 km in diameter or even wider.” Ex. 1001, 1:67–2:4. A solution to this problem is employing “at least one SRC device.” Id. at 2:9–11. The ’151 patent also describes employing the “at least one SRC device . . . within a mobile network.” Id. at 2:11–17 (emphasis added). Thus, the specification makes reasonably clear to the person of ordinary skill the range of SRC in comparison to the range of mobile networks—and in turn the scope of SRC as used in claims 21 and 22. See Young v. Lumenis, Inc., 492 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding the term “near” not indefinite where the specification makes reasonably clear that the term means “very close to or at the edge of”).” slip op. at 12
- 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 receiving information and providing services or advertisements based on that information. The preambles and all claim limitations of both claims support this abstract idea, and the ’151 patent repeatedly discloses that the invention is directed to providing services or advertisements. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:7–15, 25–27. Patent Owner has not identified any portion of the ’151 patent inconsistent with this abstract idea, and we are persuaded that the identified abstract idea is a fundamental building block of economics, similar in nature to the abstract idea of hedging claimed in Bilski and intermediated settlement claimed in Alice. Patent Owner does not direct us to any authority for its assertion that an idea is not abstract if it includes specific recitation regarding the type of information transmitted, how that information is acquired, and whether it is used for authentication. Here, the claims are generally directed to a method of (i) receiving information over a network, (ii) authenticating that information, and (iii) providing a service to a mobile terminal or receiving an advertisement over the network, all of which inform the aforementioned abstract idea. See Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Assoc., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (characterizing the claimed abstract idea as “1) collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and 3) storing that recognized data in a memory” despite claim’s recitation of specific limitations, like scanner). This combination of steps recites an abstraction because it has “no particular concrete or tangible form” and is “devoid of a concrete or tangible application.” Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The details emphasized by Patent Owner do not remove the claimed methods from the realm of the abstract. These details are characteristic of the invention’s implementation, rather than its general idea. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (describing the claim’s abstract idea without including the claim’s “computer network” limitation); see also Ultramercial 772 F.3d at 715 (stating that more detailed limitations may “add a degree of particularity,” but do not convert the concept embodied by the majority of the limitations into something concrete).” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 7,463,151 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · NautilusPatents in suitUS 7,463,151 - 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.