• Google Inc. v. Better Food Choices LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 18, 2016 · CBM2015-00071 · APJ Minn Chung · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 1–10 are also indefinite under § 112, ¶ 2 because the specification lacks an algorithm for the claimed correlating function.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenOther

    “As an initial matter, Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner has not met its burden of proof because Petitioner relies only on the ’115 patent and its prosecution history to argue unpatentability and does not present any other evidence, such as a witness. PO Resp. 6–7, 13–20. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has presented no evidence of unpatentability because the ’115 patent and its file history “shows the Patent Owner has a valid, issued patent and nothing more.” Id. at 7. We are not persuaded because, as discussed below, in this case we need to look only to the ’115 patent and its prosecution history to support a finding of unpatentability under §§ 101 and 112. See In re TLI Comm. LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613–14 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (the patent alone is sufficient to sustain a finding of unpatentability under § 101).” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “rebuttable presumption that the limitation is written in a means-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d 1256, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). If, in addition to the word “means” and the functional language, the claim recites sufficient structure for performing the described functions in their entirety, the presumption is overcome, and § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply. Id. “Sufficient structure exists when the claim language specifies the exact structure that performs the functions in question without need to resort to other portions of the specification or extrinsic evidence for an adequate understanding of the structure.” Id. at 1259–60.” slip op. at 28

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

    “with the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedents on step one analysis under the Alice framework. In step one of the Alice analysis, to determine whether the challenged claims are directed to an abstract idea, the inquiry is to ask, considered in light of the Specification, whether “their character as a whole” is directed to an abstract idea, not, as Patent Owner contends, identifying the “core invention” of the patent. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Relying on the distinction made in Alice between, on one hand, computer-functionality improvements and, on the other, uses of existing computers as tools in aid of processes focused on “abstract ideas,” the court in Enfish clarified that a relevant inquiry in step one of the Alice framework is to ask whether the “focus” of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36 (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358–59). In this inquiry, claims “directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer” are contrasted with claims “simply adding conventional computer components to well-known business practices” or “generalized steps to be performed on a computer using conventional computer activity.” See TLI, 823 F.3d at 612 (quoting Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1338). The Federal Circuit further clarified recently and described the first-stage inquiry as “looking at the ‘focus’ of the claims, their ‘character as a whole.’” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., No. 2015-” slip op. at 17

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

    “claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of collecting and correlating information to provide personalized nutritional information of food products to shoppers into a patent-eligible application of that idea. It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. TLI, 823 F.3d at 613. Rather, the recited components must involve more than performance of “‘well- understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294).” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 5,841,115 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 5,841,115
• Westlake Services, LLC v. Credit Acceptance Corp.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 25, 2016 · CBM2014-00176 · APJ David C Mckone · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 10–12 and 14–33 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract financing process using generic computer components.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “As explained in the 008-FWD, the Specification describes an advance amount as the amount of money a lender agrees to pay to the dealer. Ex. 1001, 8:45–46. “[T]he advance amount is determined by the party extending financing based on the customer’s credit score, the dealership’s past collection history, the particular vehicle being considered and other factors.” Id. at 9:21–24. Although the advance amount could be less than the sales price minus the down payment, the Specification does not require that it be so. In any case, Patent Owner has since accepted our construction of “advance amount” and has chosen not to contest it in this proceeding. Tr. 28:1–12. We maintain that construction on the full record of this proceeding. The parties do not argue in this proceeding for different constructions of “front-end profit” and “database.” We maintain these constructions on the full record of this proceeding. Additionally, in the 008-FWD, we determined that the following terms, also relevant to claims at issue in this proceeding, required no express construction: “receiving information related to a database,” “receiving information from the customer,” “calculating,” “determining,” “presenting . . . to the dealer,” “automatically recalculated,” “transmitted,” “generating,” and “selectable criteria.” 008-FWD, 10–18. In the Petition, Petitioner addressed several of these terms, contending, inter alia, that “receiving information related to a database of a dealer’s inventory,” “receiving information from the customer,” “calculating a credit score for the customer based at least in part on the information gathered from the customer,” and terms including “determining” are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Pet. 32–33, 39, 41. We declined to institute on that ground, concluding that the Petition’s showing was unpersuasive. Dec. 27. The parties propose no other constructions for these terms. On the complete record of this proceeding, we maintain our decision not to construe these terms expressly. 3. Additional Terms Construed in the Decision to Institute In the Decision to Institute, we preliminarily construed “calculation unit” to mean “a computer component configured to calculate” and “financing package generating unit” to mean “a computer component that generates financing packages and contains a database and a calculation unit.” Dec. 7. In the Petition, Petitioner contends that these terms are indefinite. Pet. 36. As stated above, we declined to institute on the asserted ground of indefiniteness. Dec. 27. The parties do not dispute further these” slip op. at 9

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

    “costs, for items in a dealer’s inventory; receiving down payment information from a customer wishing to buy a product from the dealer; calculating a credit score for the customer; determining how much a lender will advance to the dealer (advance amount) for each product in the inventory (which need only include two products); calculating profits for the inventory items2 (using arithmetic based on the advance amount, dealer cost, and down payment); and presenting a financing package (with unspecified information) to the dealer for each product in the inventory. The underlying concept of claim 1, when viewed as a whole, simply is to receive information from a customer’s credit application, process that information, 1 Claim 10, at issue in this case, depends from claim 1. Thus, our analysis of claim 10 starts with claim 1. 2 Claim 1 does not recite using such profit information. Claim 12 later recites sorting the financing packages based on selectable criteria, which could be profit. dealer. Rephrased, this is the abstract idea of “processing an application for financing a purchase.” Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and adds providing generic computer structure for performing the steps of claim 1 (a “user terminal” for entering customer information; and a “server” connected to the user terminal “via a network,” for receiving information, accessing the database, performing claim 1’s arithmetic to generate financing packages, and transmitting the financing packages to the user terminal). Thus, claim 10 recites the same abstract concept as recited in claim 1, performed with generic computer components.” slip op. at 15

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

    “applying the steps of claim 1 (which we determined in CBM-008 to be abstract) using generic, conventional computer components, recited in purely functional language. Pet. 22–23. We agree, and conclude that the generic computer components recited in claim 10 do not transform the nature of the claim such that claim 10, as a whole, recites an inventive concept. Claim 1, from which claim 10 depends, recites a database, which stores information about a dealer’s inventory. Claim 10 adds to claim 1 a server for performing calculations, a user terminal for entering the information to be calculated, and a network for moving the information back and forth. As Petitioner argues, claim 10 provides no details as to the components are recited generically, using purely functional language. In essence, claim 10 recites applying the abstract idea of claim 1 using generic computer components. Put differently, claim 10 simply limits the method of claim 1 to a particular technological environment. This is analogous to the claims at issue in Alice, which generically recited a “data storage unit” and “computer,” for example (detailed more fully in the Federal Circuit’s opinion in CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1285–90 (Fed. Cir. 2013)), and those at issue in Accenture, 728 F.3d at 1344–45, which recited a “database,” “client component,” “server component,” and “automated method,” for example. In the words of the Alice Court, claim 10 essentially “[s]tat[es] an abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it with a computer.’” 134 S. Ct. at 2358. Nor does claim 10 purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. See buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1354; compare with DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1258 (“In short, the claimed solution amounts to an inventive concept for resolving this particular Internet-centric problem, rendering the claims patent-eligible.”).” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 6,950,807 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 6,950,807
• Intermix Media, LLC v. Bally Gaming, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 20, 2016 · CBM2015-00154 · APJ Hyun J Jung · CBM · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show that claims 1–34, 38, 39, and 45–77 were more likely than not ineligible under § 101.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Petitioner fails to provide a credible analysis considering the elements of the challenged claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination”’ to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the challenged claims into a patent-eligible application in accordance with the second step of the Alice analysis. The Petition fails to provide a credible and sufficient explanation as to whether an element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure that the ’918 patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself. The Petition, instead, asserts cursory and conclusory arguments with no or insufficient evidence that the additional claim elements are well known or recite generic structure. See Pet. 31–80. Petitioner’s failure to do a full analysis under Alice constitutes a breach of 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(4), as well as 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3), which requires identifying the grounds “with particularity.”” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner fails to provide a credible analysis considering the elements of the challenged claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination”’ to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the challenged claims into a patent-eligible application in accordance with the second step of the Alice analysis. The Petition fails to provide a credible and sufficient explanation as to whether an element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure that the ’918 patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself. The Petition, instead, asserts cursory and conclusory arguments with no or insufficient evidence that the additional claim elements are well known or recite generic structure. See Pet. 31–80. Petitioner’s failure to do a full analysis under Alice constitutes a breach of 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(4), as well as 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3), which requires identifying the grounds “with particularity.”” slip op. at 7

  § 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 5,816,918
• The Jewelry Channel, Inc. USA D/B/A Liquidation Channel v. America’S Collectibles Network, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 16, 2015 · CBM2014-00119 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–39 are unpatentable under § 101, and the motion to amend proposing claims 40–42 is denied because those claims also recite patent-ineligible subject matter.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In the ’211 Patent, the producer tests a plurality of prices throughout the auction. Preliminary indicators, e.g., the number of customers who press “1” to place an order at a particular price, provide statistics about how customers reacted to the offers at various test prices. In the ’211 Patent, the producer adjusts the demand curve by reducing the quantity available based 2 OIP was decided on June 15, 2015, shortly after Patent Owner filed its Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to the Motion to Amend (Paper 28, “Opp. to Mot. to Amend”), and a month before the oral hearing in this proceeding. At our request, the parties filed post-hearing briefs on October 1, 2015, to address the implications of OIP. Paper 37 (“Petitioner’s Suppl. Brief”) and Paper 39 (“PO Suppl. Brief”). on customers’ reactions to the various price offers, and selects new prices based on the estimated outcome, i.e., expectations that additional customers will purchase units as the price is lowered. The ’211 Patent claims recite that these steps occur before the actual sale of an item being auctioned.” slip op. at 9

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

    “gathering steps, stating “[a]t best, the claims describe the automation of the fundamental economic concept of offer-based price optimization through the use of generic-computer functions.” Id. Thus, considered individually or as an ordered combination, the claim elements in OIP did not transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent eligible process. Id. Similarly, in the ’211 Patent, the remaining claim elements involve a conventional system interface, e.g., providing a website or a call-in telephone number and placing callers into a queue, routine data gathering, e.g., recording the time an inquiry enters the queue and storing the preliminary quantity of units in a database, and routine calculations, e.g., subtracting from the stored preliminary quantity of available units based on the number of customers who indicate they are prepared to make a purchase.” slip op. at 11

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

    “ideas and purported inventive subject matter in our discussion of claims 1– 39. Additional elements such as a computer and ancillary conventional apparatus such as various databases storing information accessed by the computer, a call monitoring component that places a call into a queue and assigns the call to operator, an electronic call record that records the time the call was made, and an automated message, do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea of reducing the available quantity and the price during the auction based on the indicators that provide the auction producer confidence the customer will complete a purchase at that price (or a more favorable price) at the close of the auction. “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 Techs., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm., 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (determining that a GPS receiver was a meaningful limit on the scope of the claims because, without the recited GPS receiver, it would be impossible to generate pseudo ranges that estimate the distance from a GPS receiver to a plurality of GPS satellites). In contrast, the limitations in the proposed amended claims recite elements of a general purpose computer that facilitate conducting a reverse auction more efficiently. Even limited to the context of an MSIRA, these added features do not limit the scope of the claim in a meaningful way because the reservation of units does not require a specific machine.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,370,211 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 8,370,211
• Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. v. Datatreasury Corp.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 29, 2015 · CBM2014-00021 · APJ Michael P Tierney · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–123 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 1–41 and 51–69 are also unpatentable for lack of written description under § 112.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on the evidence of record, we credit the testimony of Dr. Alexander and agree with Petitioner that: (1) the specification fails to describe encrypting the DAT_TERMINAL_ID; (2) generic “identification information” does not constitute the claimed subsystem identification information; and (3) subsystem identification information is not included in the “paper transaction data” of the disclosed receipt. Reply 12–13. We find that Petitioner has demonstrated that claims 1–41 and 51–69 are unpatentable for lack of sufficient written description for encrypting subsystem identification information.” slip op. at 22

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which [they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b); see Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“Trial Practice Guide”); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2015); In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. “There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).” slip op. at 7

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable

    “We credit Dr. Alexander’s testimony and determine that the ’988 patent simply arranges old well-known elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform. E.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 26–28, 31, 85. Based on the record presented, we do not see how the limitations in claim 46 are significant meaningful limitations that transform the abstract 4 Petitioner contends that the challenged claims do not recite a “three-tiered” architecture. Reply 8. For purposes of this decision, we assume the Patent Owner is correct in stating that its claims require such architecture. idea into patent-eligible applications of these abstractions. Patent Owner’s contentions focused on the alleged meaningful limitations appearing in claim 46 or the challenged claims in general. We have reviewed the remaining challenged claims and likewise are persuaded, based on the evidence presented, that the remaining claims also lack limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea and avoid unacceptable preemption. Reply, 1. We hold that the challenged claims recite nothing more than conventional equipment and steps, specified at a high level of generality on top of the underlying abstract concept. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 5,910,988 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 5,910,988
• Westlake Services, LLC D/B/A Westlake Financial Services, LLC v. Credit Acceptance Corp.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 24, 2015 · CBM2014-00008 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9, 13, and 34–42 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract financing process implemented with routine computer use.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “Claim 1 recites in pertinent part “calculating a front-end profit to be realized by the dealer for each individual product in the dealer inventory based on the dealer cost associated with each individual product, the advance amount determined for each individual product, and the down payment amount” (emphases added). The actual claim language as to calculation of the “front-end profit” is repeated in the Specification. Ex. 1001, 3:63–66. “Put simply, the front-end profit, is equal to the down payment amount plus the advance amount minus the dealer’s costs.” Id. at 8:60–63. “Advance amount” is construed immediately hereafter. Thus, we construe “front-end profit” to mean “the down payment amount plus the advance amount minus the dealer cost.”” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningNo construction neededOther

    “Patent Owner’s cites to the Specification are not directly supportive of its proposed construction. PO Resp. 40–42. Patent Owner cites to the Nerenberg Declaration, as it did previously, for the proposition that automation of financing options through a computer is quicker than doing so manually. Id. at 41 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 53). The speed with which a computer may perform calculations is not a part of the construction of the term at issue. Further, we see no reason why the claims should be construed to require communication over a “network,” when the term is not recited in any of the challenged claims (but is recited in others, such as claim 14, for example). We determine that the term “receiving information from the customer” is plain on its face and requires no express construction.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We conclude that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea and, at most, merely recites implementing it with a computer. See Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231. The abstract idea of processing an application for financing a purchase claimed is a known concept described in the ’807 patent. Ex. 1001, 1:33–2:50. Specifically, the ’807 patent describes processing a financing application as: a customer completing a credit application; obtaining financing from a financing institution; the customer providing a down payment and signing a promissory note to the dealer; and the financing institution paying the dealer the balance for the purchase after applying the down payment. Id. at 1:33–2:14. If the financing is not completed, the process is repeated. Id. at 2:15–50; see Tr. 34:6–35:10. Patent Owner’s arguments that the claims are directed to a specific method are relevant, if at all, to the second step of the Alice framework, not the first, and are therefore unpersuasive. We disagree that claim 1 taken “as a whole” is any more than an abstract idea relating to the general method of processing an application for financing a purchase. Claim 1 simply describes receiving information, including sale prices and dealer costs, for items in a dealer’s inventory; receiving down payment information from a customer wishing to buy a product from the dealer; calculating a credit score for the customer; determining how much a financer will advance to the dealer (advance amount) for each product in the inventory; calculating profits for the inventory items (using basic arithmetic based on the advance amount, dealer cost, and down payment); and presenting financing packages (with unspecified information) to the dealer. Ex. 1001, 12:56–13:14. The arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner are persuasive that claim 1 is directed to no more than this abstract idea, not tied to any specific machine, of processing an application for financing a purchase. Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 280, 285). Patent Owner’s evidence and arguments in this case do not persuade us otherwise. For purposes of the first step of Alice, Patent Owner has not distinguished any of the other independent or dependent claims from claim 1. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has proven that claims 1–9, 13, and 34–42 are directed to an abstract idea.” slip op. at 26

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

    “We are not persuaded that the claims include something beyond the abstract idea that transforms the claimed abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. Merely using a computer to speed the steps of generating a financing package for each item of inventory is not such a transformation. See Bancorp Services, 687 F.3d at 1278 (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). Likewise, the ability to create an “immediate offer” does nothing more than speed up that which can be done by a human. Although we agree that the claimed steps require a computer, there is insufficient evidence for us to conclude that the computer is being utilized for anything beyond routine or conventional use. We have reviewed the Nerenberg Declaration, including specifically paragraphs 130–153, and find it to be conclusory and lacking sufficient underlying facts or data. As such, we give the declaration minimal weight in our determination. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). As noted above, routine use of a computer is not enough to meet the inventive concept step of Alice. Ultramercial III, 772 F.3d at 716; see Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (“Given the ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of additional featur[e] that provides any practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted); Accenture, 728 F.3d at 1344–45 (claims reciting a “database,” “client component,” “server component,” and “automated method,” for example); CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (claims reciting a “data storage unit” and “computer,” for example). Even assuming some of the claimed steps were not previously known in the art is not alone enough to confer patent eligibility. Id. Moreover, the ’807 patent itself describes the steps in a financing process as they existed before the ’807 patent. Ex. 1001, 1:33–2:50. Thus, the record supports our conclusion that the steps of the method were known previously. Further, Patent Owner acknowledges the steps individually are known but argues the steps as a whole transform the claim into patentable subject matter. Tr. 31:21–32:1. This argument is not supported sufficiently by any evidence beyond attorney argument to persuade us of patent eligibility. Patent Owner argues that there are many ways of providing financing that do not require calculating either a “front-end profit” or an “advance amount.” PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 120). Mr. Nerenberg testifies that examples where the two terms are not required for financing are mortgages and student education loans. Ex. 2008 ¶ 120. Nevertheless, calculating an amount a lender will advance or an amount by which a dealer will profit from a transaction are routine, conventional activities for financial transactions. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:34–2:10. Furthermore, our construction of the terms “front-end profit” and “advance amount” supports that they are conventional. Regardless, neither term, alone or in combination, “transform[s] the nature of the claim” into patent eligible subject matter. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1297.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 6,950,807 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 6,950,807
• Linkedin Corp. v. Avmarkets Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 10, 2014 · CBM2013-00025 · APJ Michael P Tierney · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–7, 9–11, and 13–15 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract product catalog using routine computer technology.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “While a Motion to Exclude may raise issues related to admissibility of evidence, it is not an opportunity to file a Sur-Reply, and also is not a mechanism to argue that a Reply contains new arguments or relies on evidence that should have been included in the prima facie case. Here, AvMarkets’ Motion to Exclude contains such improper arguments, and is in the nature of a Sur-Reply. Moreover, as discussed below, AvMarkets’ arguments also are without merit.” slip op. at 5

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We also hold that both Mr. Pollastro and Dr. Freedman are qualified to testify as to the level and knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art as of 2007, the time of the invention. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science or equivalent experience in the art of software and hardware development, including the development of Web applications. Ex. 1012 ¶ 3; Ex. 2001 ¶ 4. Mr. Pollastro is qualified to testify as, at the time of the invention, he was a Microsoft Certified Professional who had years of experience building and managing servers for an in-house network. Ex 2001 ¶¶ 2–3. Dr. Freedman is qualified to testify as, at the time of the invention, he possessed a Bachelor’s degree and Master’s degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Computer Science and Engineering, and a Ph.D. in Computer Science from New York University. Ex. 1012 ¶ 3.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We find that the claimed invention merely requires the use of a general-purpose computer. This finding is based on the teachings of the ’430 patent Specification and Dr. Freedman’s testimony. We credit the testimony of Dr. Freedman over that of Mr. Pollastro, as Dr. Freedman’s testimony is consistent with the teachings of the ’430 Specification and provides a thorough, well-reasoned analysis as to why the ’430 claims require nothing more than a general-purpose computer.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “See Dec. on Inst. 4–6. The parties do not dispute these interpretations in their Patent Owner Response and Reply. We adopt the above claim constructions based on our previous analysis, and see no reason to deviate from those constructions for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 8

  Patent outcomesUS 7,856,430 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,856,430
• Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 30, 2014 · CBM2012-00007 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 6, 9, and 10 are unpatentable under § 101 and anticipated by or obvious over Jensen-1; the Board did not reach the remaining prior-art challenges.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyDecided for petitioner

    “determinations are pure questions of law, not subject to the clear and convincing evidence standard, is not supported by the Federal Circuit. “[T]he analysis under [35 U.S.C.] § 101, while ultimately a legal determination, is rife with underlying factual issues.” Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing, e.g., CLS Bank Int'l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1304–05 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc)) (Chief Judge Rader, and Judges Linn, Moore, and O'Malley, concluding that “any attack on an issued patent based on a challenge to the eligibility of the subject matter must be proven by clear and convincing evidence,” and Judges Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna, and Wallach, concluding that a statutory presumption of validity applies when § 101 is raised as a basis for invalidity in district court proceedings.)). In denying Petitioner’s motion for judgment as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the District Court stated only that Petitioner failed to show that claims 1 and 10 of the ’201 Patent do not cover a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” Ex. 2039, 2. The District Court’s decision applied the clear and convincing evidence standard to the facts underlying its determination of law when denying Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment and motion for judgment as a matter of law that the claims of the ’201 Patent do not recite eligible subject matter. In contrast, the Board reviews the patentability of a claim, rather than its validity, and applies a preponderance of the evidence standard to the underlying factual determinations, e.g., whether the claims contain limitations that narrow or tie them to specific applications of an otherwise abstract concept. 35 U.S.C. § 326(e); Ultramercial, 722 F.3d at 1339. Because the Board applies to the underlying facts an evidentiary standard that is different from the standard applied by the courts, the issue decided by the Board is not identical to the one decided or litigated in the first action and could not have been essential to the final judgment in the first action. See In re Freeman, 30 F.3d, 1459, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Petitioner did not have an opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action. Id. Therefore, we conclude that Petitioner’s challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel.” slip op. at 5

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

    “abstract idea, the claim instead is drawn to the abstract idea itself. Ultramercial, 722 F.3d at 1343. Inventor, Dr. Jost considers his invention to be the process for predicting the selling price of a home (a point estimate) using statistical analysis to develop the point estimate, and a co-inventor’s error model, which was also developed using statistical analysis. Ex. 1022, 72-73, 81-82. Dr. Jost’s testimony is consistent with claims 1 and 10, which recite appraising real estate by developing and storing a predictive model and generating a signal indicative of the appraised (predicted) value, and developing and storing an error model and generating a signal indicative of the error range for the appraised (predicted) value. Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Lipscomb characterizes the invention as “a way to determine the sales price of a property that may not have a recent sales transaction” and that predictive models “have been around a long time.” Ex. 1024, 42-43. Determining a price has been found to be abstract as a method of calculating. See, SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Dev. Group, Inc., CBM2012- 00001, 2013 WL 3167735, at *16 (PTAB, June 11 2013). Dr. Jost testified that it was common in statistics to provide a confidence interval around estimates. Ex. 1022, 102. The testimony of Dr. Jost and Dr. Lipscomb indicates that determining an error can be accomplished using the same well known techniques as those applied to the predictive model and that bounding a price estimate by an error range is an abstract concept. Therefore, we find the claimed development of a model to predict a value and an error model to assess the error range around the predicted value, as recited in claims 1 and 10, is an abstract concept. Similarly, claims 6 and 9 recite limitations that bound the geographic area from which data is obtained to develop the model. The limitations in claims 6 and 9 recite the abstract and well known concept of examining the geographic area around the subject property so that relevant samples can be obtained to predict the price of the property.” slip op. at 10

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptIneligibleUnpatentable
  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “54-55. Patent Owner’s argument is similar to its underlying theme that CAMA prior art does not apply to the claimed AVM system. As discussed above, we do not find this argument persuasive because the ultimate objective of each system is to determine a value for each individual parcel. The same sentence in Jensen-1 that refers to a model estimating the sales price of all the properties also refers to adjustments necessary to correct the actual sales prices of selected recent comparable sales for the property characteristic differences between the subject property being valued and each comparable sale, in order to ascertain what each comparable property would have sold for had it been identical to the subject property in a physical descriptive sense on the valuation date. Ex. 1014, p. 194. (Emphasis added). Thus, as recited in claims 1, 6, 9 and 10, Jensen-1 obtains individual property data and recognizes a relationship between individual property data and the training data. Jensen-1 also discloses using the training data to predict the individual property value, as recited in claims 1, 6, 9 and 10. Jensen-1 discusses a model in which the value of a property is based on the land value qualified by a set of adjustments. Ex. 1014, p. 198. The adjustments reflect specific property characteristics. For example, up to a point, the value of a property can be expected to increase with increasing frontage. Id. Thus, specific properties with different frontage are valued differently. Jensen-1 discloses other modeling approaches that determine various per unit rates within a market model using regression analysis, Longini and Carbone’s adaptive estimation, and Carlson’s iterative correlative estimation procedure. Id. at 200. Jensen-1’s discussion of interactive correlative estimation specifically states that, within each iteration, “the model estimate and then the residual error (the actual sale price minus the model estimate) are computed on a per parcel basis.” Ex. 1014, p. 220. Thus, Jensen-1 discloses generating an appraised value responsive to the application of individual property data to the predictive error model. Jensen-1 specifically states that “[o]nce meaningful market models have been developed from the available sales, they can be used to estimate the fair market values of all of the parcels in the jurisdiction whether recently sold or not.” Ex. 2014, p. 224. As discussed above, the reference to all parcels in the jurisdiction does not imply that all the parcels are evaluated the same. Jensen discloses that the market models take into account the various characteristics of each parcel and determine a value for each parcel. Jensen-1 notes that the model estimate, i.e., the fair market value of each parcel as determined by the market models, is an abstract number and its reliability as an approximation of true market value depends on the quality of the individual estimates. Ex. 1014, p. 224. Jensen-1 specifically notes that when an actual sale price falls below the value estimate, it may or may not indicate a problem with the appraisal. Id. Thus, Jensen-1 applies to individual appraisals and attempts to assess an error in the appraisal of each parcel.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 5,361,201 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Mayo
  Patents in suitUS 5,361,201
• SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development Group, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 11, 2013 · CBM2012-00001 · APJ Michael P Tierney · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 17 and 26–29 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim abstract pricing and hierarchy concepts without meaningful limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “SAP, as petitioner, bears the ultimate burden of proof that Versata’s claims are unpatentable under § 101. To place SAP’s and Versata’s contentions in context, we begin our analysis by first discussing our construction of the challenged claims. Bancorp Serv., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 687 F.3d 1266, 1273-74 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[I]t will ordinarily be desirable—and often necessary— to resolve claim construction disputes prior to a § 101 analysis, for the determination of patent eligibility requires a full understanding of the basic character of the claimed subject matter.”).” slip op. at 6

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties’ experts disagree as to whether the appended steps are merely routine, conventional steps or reflect meaningful limitations. Dr. Siegel, SAP’s expert, testifies that besides the abstract ideas, the claims merely recite routine, conventional activities. Ex. 1005, ¶ 49.19 In contrast, Dr. Liebich, Versata’s expert, testifies that the SAP R/3 pricing technology available at the time of the invention did not practice the combination of steps (storing, retrieving, sorting, eliminating, and determining) recited in the claims. Ex. 2091, ¶ 62. Dr. Liebich further testifies that he was not aware of any pricing technology in the marketplace at that time that performed the combination of steps. Id. Patent eligibility is distinct from the question of whether or not the claims recite subject matter that was not in the marketplace at the time of the invention. Flook, 437 U.S. at 593 (“[Section 101] does not involve the familiar issues of novelty and obviousness that routinely arise under §§ 102 and 103.”).20 We agree with SAP that Versata and Dr. Liebich fail to establish that the additional “specific” steps that are appended to the abstract idea provide meaningful limitations. The contention that the combination of the abstract idea and the specific steps represents an improvement in marketplace technology does not demonstrate that the additional steps are anything other than conventional, routine steps that are a consequence of implementing the abstract idea. Specifically, the Court in Flook held that a claim for an “improved” method is” slip op. at 31

  • Skill levelOther

    “after retrieval. PO Resp. 55-57. We agree with Versata that Figure 15B of the ’350 patent describes the use of the method where the sorting step occurs after 17 The field of the invention is computerized financial systems. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, ¶ 16. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science and experience developing computerized financial systems. Id., ¶ 18. retrieving all pricing adjustments. Id., and Ex. 1001, Fig. 15b, 4:62, 18:53-54 and 19:4-43. Yet, the ’350 patent states explicitly that numerous specific details are set forth in the description, but that it would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the present invention could be practiced without the specific details. Ex. 1001, 4:67-5:5. SAP’s expert, Dr. Siegel, testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that claim 17 “does not imply or require a temporal limitation forcing the sorting to occur after the retrieving.” Ex. 1005, ¶ 98. Versata’s expert, Dr. Liebich, testifies that “it is generally the case that data stored in a data source must first be retrieved from the data source before the data can be sorted.” Ex. 2091, ¶ 126 (emphasis added). Based upon the record presented, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art reading the ’350 specification would have understood that retrieving then sorting was the preferred, but not the only, method of carrying out the invention. Accordingly, we hold that the ’350 patent specification does not require retrieving then sorting.” slip op. at 21

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

    “We agree with SAP that claim 17 does not itself impose a temporal limitation on when the pricing information is sorted. As SAP contends, Versata’s arguments and expert testimony as to what is “generally” the case do not demonstrate that Versata sought to limit claim 17 in the way that claim 1 expressly was limited. Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (holding that similar language did not require separate and consecutive performance of various steps). Versata contends that the specification demonstrates that sorting must occur after retrieval. PO Resp. 55-57. We agree with Versata that Figure 15B of the ’350 patent describes the use of the method where the sorting step occurs after 17 The field of the invention is computerized financial systems. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, ¶ 16. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science and experience developing computerized financial systems. Id., ¶ 18. retrieving all pricing adjustments. Id., and Ex. 1001, Fig. 15b, 4:62, 18:53-54 and 19:4-43. Yet, the ’350 patent states explicitly that numerous specific details are set forth in the description, but that it would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the present invention could be practiced without the specific details. Ex. 1001, 4:67-5:5. SAP’s expert, Dr. Siegel, testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that claim 17 “does not imply or require a temporal limitation forcing the sorting to occur after the retrieving.” Ex. 1005, ¶ 98. Versata’s expert, Dr. Liebich, testifies that “it is generally the case that data stored in a data source must first be retrieved from the data source before the data can be sorted.” Ex. 2091, ¶ 126 (emphasis added). Based upon the record presented, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art reading the ’350 specification would have understood that retrieving then sorting was the preferred, but not the only, method of carrying out the invention. Accordingly, we hold that the ’350 patent specification does not require retrieving then sorting.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 6,553,350 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Mayo · Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,553,350

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.