- Life Technologies Corporation v. Unisone Strategic IP, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 23, 2017 · CBM2016-00025 · APJ Hyun J Jung · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1, 14, 19, 22–28, 32, 34–36, and 45 are unpatentable under § 101 as patent-ineligible subject matter.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“II. ANALYSIS A. Claim Construction Although Petitioner presents constructions for several claim terms (Pet. 39), we determine that no terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 9
- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“Patent Owner presents no arguments regarding Petitioner’s challenge that claims 1, 14, 19, 22–28, 32, 34–36, and 45 are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Patent Owner acknowledges that the Scheduling Order (Paper 8, 3) cautions that “any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed waived.” Paper 15, 5. Patent Owner’s counsel also stated that “Patent owner has been advised of all the orders from the board.” Ex. 1037, 6:9–12. In view of the record before us, we determine that Patent Owner has been cautioned and advised regarding waiver of patentability arguments, and because Patent Owner has not raised any arguments for patentability, we find that it has waived its arguments regarding Petitioner’s challenge of claims 1, 14, 19, 22–28, 32, 34–36, and 45 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Therefore, the record now is the same as with our Decision on Institution. For the reasons stated in that decision, we conclude that claims 1, 14, 19, 22–28, 32, 34–36, and 45 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” slip op. at 23
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Unpatentable
“Patent Owner presents no arguments regarding Petitioner’s challenge that claims 1, 14, 19, 22–28, 32, 34–36, and 45 are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Patent Owner acknowledges that the Scheduling Order (Paper 8, 3) cautions that “any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed waived.” Paper 15, 5. Patent Owner’s counsel also stated that “Patent owner has been advised of all the orders from the board.” Ex. 1037, 6:9–12. In view of the record before us, we determine that Patent Owner has been cautioned and advised regarding waiver of patentability arguments, and because Patent Owner has not raised any arguments for patentability, we find that it has waived its arguments regarding Petitioner’s challenge of claims 1, 14, 19, 22–28, 32, 34–36, and 45 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Therefore, the record now is the same as with our Decision on Institution. For the reasons stated in that decision, we conclude that claims 1, 14, 19, 22–28, 32, 34–36, and 45 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 6,996,538 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibilityPatents in suitUS 6,996,538 - Care N’ Care Insurance Co., Inc. / Trizetto Corp. v. Integrated Claims Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 28, 2016 · CBM2015-00063 · APJ Hyun J Jung · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 20, 21, 24, and 25 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 1, 6, 9, 15, and 20 are anticipated by Lech; and claims 6, 8, 12, 13, …
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioners have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 20, 21, 24, and 25 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner proposes construing “field” as “computer software field.” Prelim. Resp. 24–33. We see no reason to interpret “fields” as “computer software fields.” We agree with Petitioners that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is circular insofar as the construction includes the entire term being construed. See Pet. Reply 6. Further, as discussed below, even if “fields” were interpreted as “computer software fields,” the complete record persuades us that Petitioners have shown unpatentability of the challenged claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioners propose that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “digital attachment” recited by claim 9 is “information that can be digitized.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 32, 33, 36; Ex. 1003, 11:18–19, 20– 35). For the purposes of this Decision, we need not construe this or any other term expressly. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only those terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“In the Decision on Institution, we interpreted “unitary data stream” as “transmitted set of information.” Dec. on Inst. 12. Patent Owner states that it “agrees that such definition is the broadest reasonable construction.” PO Resp. 24; see also Pet. Reply 4 (stating “Patent Owner does not dispute that the correct construction of ‘unitary data stream’ for this proceeding is ‘transmitted set of information.’”). Based on our review of the complete record, we do not perceive any reason or evidence that now compels any deviation from this interpretation.” slip op. at 7
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“device operatively coupled to a computer network receiving and transferring or transmitting contents of fields of a unitary data stream. Based on the full record before us, we determine that the subject matter of the challenged claims, when considered as a whole, is directed to the abstract idea of transmitting or copying information from a source to a destination. In particular, the complete record persuades us that the idea of transmitting or copying information from a source to a destination represents a disembodied, well-known concept, i.e., a basic building block of human ingenuity and that does not rise beyond the level of an abstract idea. See Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347 (“Applying Mayo/Alice step one, we agree with the district court that the claims of the asserted patent are drawn to the abstract idea of 1) collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data within the collected data set and 3) storing that recognized data in a memory. The concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known. Indeed, humans have always performed these functions.”); see also Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (“[I]n applying the § 101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the ‘“buildin[g] block[s]”’ of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something more”) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1303). We also agree with Petitioners that the” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 7,178,020 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · BilskiPatents in suitUS 7,178,020 - Care N’ Care Insurance Co. / Trizetto Corp. v. Integrated Claims Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 28, 2016 · CBM2015-00062 · APJ Hyun J Jung · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 27, 30, 36, 42–45, and 49–52 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 27, 42–45, and 49–52 under § 102; and claims 30, 36, and 42 under § 103.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionNo construction neededDecided for petitioner
“In the Decision on Institution, we interpreted “unitary data stream” as “transmitted set of information.” Dec. on Inst. 12. Patent Owner states that it “agree[s] that such definition is the broadest reasonable construction.” PO Resp. 24; see also Pet. Reply 5 (stating “Patent Owner does not dispute that the correct construction of ‘unitary data stream’ for this proceeding is ‘transmitted set of information’”). Based on our review of the complete record, we do not perceive any reason or evidence that now compels any deviation from this interpretation. Patent Owner further proposes interpreting “fields” as “computer software fields.” PO Resp. 24–33. Petitioners dispute the proposed interpretation of “fields.” Reply 4–7. We see no reason to interpret “fields” as “computer software fields.” We agree with Petitioners that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is circular insofar as the construction includes the entire term being construed. See Pet. Reply 5. Further, as discussed below, even if “fields” were interpreted as “computer software fields,” the complete record persuades us that Petitioners have shown unpatentability of the challenged claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioners also propose interpreting “identities” recited by claims 42– 45 and 50–52 as “labels” (Pet. 4), and Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute that such definition is the broadest reasonable construction” (PO Resp. 24). For the purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe this or other claim terms further. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”). III.” slip op. at 8
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“simply ask whether the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept” and that “some improvements in computer-related technology when appropriately claimed are undoubtedly not abstract, such as a chip architecture, an LED display, and the like.” Enfish, 882 F.3d at 1335. Therefore, the Federal Circuit “f[ou]nd it relevant to ask whether the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea” and that the “first step in the Alice inquiry . . . asks 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.” Id. at 1335–1336. Here, claim 27 recites “a digital device,” “first and second networked components,” and a method that includes receiving and parsing a data stream with N fields and routing portions of the N fields to networked components. Claim 42 recites a “server” that receives a file with identifiable fields and copies a subset of the fields to correlated fields of a second file. Claim 50 does not expressly require any computers and recites a method that includes receiving a file with identifiable fields and copying a subset of the fields to correlated fields of a second file. The claims do not recite an improvement in computer-related technology, “such as a chip architecture, an LED display, and the like.” See Enfish, 882 F.3d at 1335. Patent Owner’s asserted improvement is “an improvement to data processing performed by a mainframe computer system or similar systems, allowing processing text data with associated digital attachments” (PO Resp. 48), but the focus of the challenged claims is not on “processing text data with associated digital attachments.” The claims instead require receiving data with fields and routing or copying a portion or subset of the fields. The asserted improvement is not an improvement in “computer functionality” or capabilities, but instead, as Patent Owner concedes, “an improvement to data processing performed by a mainframe computer system or similar system.” See PO Resp. 48. As discussed further below, the challenged claims invoke computers merely as a tool. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1338 (stating “patent-ineligible claims at issue in other cases . . . recited generalized steps to be performed on a computer using conventional computer activity”); see also Bascom Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 2015-1763, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2016) (stating that the “Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities”).” slip op. at 30
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“Based on our factual findings from the specification of the ’020 patent described above and the full record before us, we determine that the recited “digital device operatively coupled to first and second networked components” can be at least one of a personal computer, legacy computer, network server, or buffer computer. The complete record does not persuade us that the “digital device operatively coupled to first and second networked components” requires more than generic computer components. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357–58 (explaining computer implementation not enough when “the process could be ‘carried out in existing computers long in use’” or when “the computer implementation was purely conventional”). Considering the full record before us, for the reasons explained above, we determine that claim 27 recites well-known, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry and generic computer components. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (“Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is ‘[p]urely conventional.’”). When considered as an ordered combination, we determine that claim 27 adds nothing that is not already present when its elements are considered individually. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (“Considered ‘as an ordered combination,’ the computer components of petitioner’s method ‘ad[d] nothing . . . that is not already present when the steps are considered separately.”); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[R]elying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”); Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1278 (explaining that a computer “employed only for its most basic function ... does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims”); cf. DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1258–59 (finding a computerimplemented method patent eligible where the claims recite a specific manipulation of a general-purpose computer such that the claims do not rely on a “computer network operating in its normal, expected manner”). Claim 27 “merely recite[s] the abstract idea . . . with the requirement . . . to perform it on a set of generic computer components”; does not “recite a specific, discrete implementation of the abstract idea”; and cannot “be read to ‘improve[] an existing technological process.’” See Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at *7. As discussed above, claim 27 recites well-known, routine, conventional activities that are arranged conventionally and generically. See id. at *6 (stating that “an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces”).” slip op. at 40
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“receiving a unitary data stream including N fields of data,” Petitioners cite column 5, line 59 to column 6, line 16 and Figure 2 of Lech, not just column 6, lines 11–16. Pet. 59–60. In the cited portion, we find that Lech discloses that “scanner 210 stores all of the information extracted off of hard copy document 100 in the scanner memory 220” and that the “extracted information is stored in two forms . . . as image information [and] textual information recognized on the hard copy document 100 by, for example, employing standard character recognition software.” Ex. 1009, 5:66–6:7. We find that the portion of Lech cited by Petitioners supports their contention that the “exemplary hard copy document 100 of Fig. 2 is preferably scanned in and fields of information on it are recognized using standard optical character recognition software.” Pet. 59–60 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 64; Ex. 1009, 5:66–6:8). We also agree with Petitioners that the stored information is sent to computer 230. The portion of Lech cited by Petitioners discusses first and second operational modes and explicitly states that, in the second mode of operation, the information is displayed on computer 230. Ex. 1009, 6:13–16. The first and second operational modes appear to differ by how much of the document is scanned, not where the scanned information is sent. See id. at 6:63–67 (describing that “[t]hese second modes of operation are efficient for small businesses . . . since the user does not necessarily have to store all of the information that appears on the hard copy document”). Moreover, we find that Lech expressly discloses that the “information from scanner memory 220 or main memory 250 is transmitted to computer 230.” Ex. 1009, 5:1–2. Petitioners provide an asserted understanding of Lech by one of ordinary skill in the art in an “Overview of Lech,” and Petitioners cite this same portion of Lech to assert that the “document image, the extracted textual information, or both are then sent to a computer.” Pet. 56–57 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 52). We, thus, find that Lech discloses that the output from the scanner is sent to the computer 230 and that the output includes information in fields, as shown in Figure 2 of Lech, and therefore, discloses “receiving a unitary data stream including N fields of data,” as required by claim 27. slip op. at 55
Patent outcomesUS 7,178,020 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · BilskiPatents in suitUS 7,178,020 - Life Technologies Corporation v. Unisone Strategic IP, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 28, 2016 · CBM2015-00037 · APJ Jacqueline Wright Bonilla · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 52, 62, 67, 70–76, 81, 83–85, and 96 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of inventory management using generic computer components.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“degrees in inventory management or similar fields such as supply chain control or logistics” per se, and has “not studied, for a profession, the history of inventory management.” Id. at 34–35 (citing Ex. 2005, 16:14–21, 41:22– 42:3). According to Patent Owner, “Dr. Siegel admits he has no expertise in information management history and only attempted to educate himself in order to prepare his declaration.” Id. at 35. It is clear from Dr. Siegel’s testimony, however, that he has extensive experience in “the use of information technology with business strategy and operations,” has handled professionally “issues related to the integration of information” using computer and software systems, and holds advanced degrees in engineering and computer science. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 3–11. We are satisfied that Dr. Siegel possesses sufficient qualifications to testify on matters that are relevant to our analysis here, including matters that do not concern the alleged “ancient” history of inventory management. PO Resp. 35. For example, Dr. Siegel testifies that relevant aspects of automated inventory management and VMI were well known before the priority date of the ’538 patent. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 25–28 (citing Ex. 1018); Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 5–22 (citing Exs. 1020-1022, 1024, 1025). Dr. Siegel also testifies that the ’538 patent specification describes hardware and software that “require only generic computer implementation—not specialized hardware or software.” Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 43–54, 78–79, 89. In addition, Dr. Siegel discusses general concepts of inventory management using a computer and whether certain limitations of the challenged claims can be performed mentally, using pen and paper, or manually, without use of a computer. Id. at ¶¶ 40, 58–66, 80, 90.” slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Both Petitioner and Patent Owner present constructions for several claim terms. Pet. 19–24; PO Resp. 12–23. For example, Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner misconstrues the term “customer” by defining it as “a buyer (person or organization) that uses the claimed inventory management.” PO Resp. 15; Pet. 19–20. Consistent with the specification of the ’538 patent, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction of “customer” as referring to a “buyer of products via the present invention” (Ex. 1001, 5:52– 56), i.e., a buyer of products using the inventory management system recited in the respective claims.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Patent Owner also presents constructions in relation to other claim terms such as “inventory restocking parameters provided by said customer,” “tracks” or “tracking,” “access” to information according to “assigned permissions or roles,” and “detecting.” PO Resp. 18–23. For many of the reasons stated in Petitioner’s reply to those constructions, we decline Patent Owner’s invitation to import inappropriately “computerized” aspects into those general terms, notwithstanding the fact that the challenged claims elsewhere recite computer components, such as a “computer,” “databases,” and “software.” Reply 23–25; see also Ex. 1001, 3:3–10 (stating that Customer Inventory System 130 allows manual inventory tracking). For purposes of this Decision otherwise, however, we need not expressly construe claim terms further. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 8
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“Based on the complete record before us, we determine that claim 67 is directed to the abstract idea of managing inventory in view of information. We are persuaded that managing inventory in view of collected and analyzed customer inventory, cost information, restocking information provided by a customer, as recited in claim 67, describes the basic concept of inventory management, i.e., a “fundamental economic practice.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356. The method of claim 67 is sufficiently similar in this regard to the method of hedging against financial risk at issue in Bilski, 130 S.Ct. 3218 (2010), and the idea of intermediated settlement at issue in Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356–57 (discussing Bilski). See also Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (holding the abstract idea at the heart of a system claim to be “generating tasks [based on] rules . . . to be completed upon the occurrence of an event” (citation omitted)).” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 6,996,538 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · BilskiPatents in suitUS 6,996,538 - Care N’ Care Insurance Company, Inc. / Trizetto Corporation v. Integrated Claims Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 21, 2016 · CBM2015-00064 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 81 and 83–88 are unpatentable under § 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without an inventive concept.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“Considering the full record before us, we agree with, and adopt as our own, Petitioners’ explanation of why the challenged claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of receiving information, storing it, and determining which of its parts to enter into a display into a patent-eligible application of that idea. Pet. 34–43. Stated simply, the challenged claims require no more than generic computer components performing generic computer functions and conventional activities. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (noting, in carrying out the second step, that the “the relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea . . . on a generic computer”); TLI, 2016 WL 2865693 at *6 (“These steps fall squarely within our precedent finding generic computer components insufficient to add an inventive concept to an otherwise abstract idea.”). For example, claim 81 recites receiving data in fields, storing data in memory, determining which data to enter for display using a generic “logic process,” and displaying data. “[A]ll of these computer functions are ‘wellunderstood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The parallels that Petitioner draws between the claims challenged here and those addressed in Content Extraction are compelling. See Pet. 35–36. Patent Owner’s reliance on the use of fields in the challenged claims to satisfy the second step of the Mayo/Alice analysis and to distinguish Content Extraction is unpersuasive in view of Petitioners’ argument and evidence that computer software fields are a generic, well-known concept in data processing, and that using fields to transfer information from a field in one form to a correlated field in another form was routine and conventional. Reply 12; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 36–37.” slip op. at 24
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We agree with Petitioners. We see no reason why the resolution of the issues before us requires an express construction of this term. Even if we were to construe “field” as a “computer software field,” it would not impact our analysis of claims 81 and 83‒88 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly, we do not provide an express construction of “field.” See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 14
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioners that the challenged claims are directed to a process of receiving information, storing it, and determining which of its parts to enter into a display. Pet. 29. Claims directed to such a process are analogous to the data processing claims that the Federal Circuit held were directed to an abstract idea in Content Extraction and Cyberfone. In particular, as Petitioners argue, the step in claim 81 “of determining which parts of the information to enter into a graphical display is analogous to the step in [Content Extraction] of ‘recognizing certain data within the collected data set.’” Pet. 33. Further, the steps in claim 81 of receiving information and storing it are similar to the steps in Content Extraction of collecting data and storing the recognized data in a memory. Id. With respect to Cyberfone, we agree with Petitioners that the challenged claims can be “described as directed to methods of ‘obtaining data . . . separating it into component parts, and sending those parts to different destinations’ that the Federal Circuit in Cyberfone held embodied an abstract idea.” Id. at 34 (quoting Cyberfone, 558 F. App’x at 990). We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments that the challenged claims are not directed to an abstract idea, but those arguments are not persuasive for the reasons that follow.” slip op. at 17
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“Considering the full record before us, we agree with, and adopt as our own, Petitioners’ explanation of why the challenged claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of receiving information, storing it, and determining which of its parts to enter into a display into a patent-eligible application of that idea. Pet. 34–43. Stated simply, the challenged claims require no more than generic computer components performing generic computer functions and conventional activities. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (noting, in carrying out the second step, that the “the relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea . . . on a generic computer”); TLI, 2016 WL 2865693 at *6 (“These steps fall squarely within our precedent finding generic computer components insufficient to add an inventive concept to an otherwise abstract idea.”). For example, claim 81 recites receiving data in fields, storing data in memory, determining which data to enter for display using a generic “logic process,” and displaying data. “[A]ll of these computer functions are ‘wellunderstood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The parallels that Petitioner draws between the claims challenged here and those addressed in Content Extraction are compelling. See Pet. 35–36. Patent Owner’s reliance on the use of fields in the challenged claims to satisfy the second step of the Mayo/Alice analysis and to distinguish Content Extraction is unpersuasive in view of Petitioners’ argument and evidence that computer software fields are a generic, well-known concept in data processing, and that using fields to transfer information from a field in one form to a correlated field in another form was routine and conventional. Reply 12; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 36–37. We also agree with Petitioners that the challenged claims fail the machine-or-transformation test because the claims “are not tied to any particular novel machine or apparatus, only a general purpose computer,” and “adding a computer to otherwise conventional steps does not make an invention patent-eligible.” Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716–17. We discern nothing in the challenged claims requiring a novel machine or apparatus. Indeed, as noted above, Patent Owner concedes that “the hardware components recited by the Challenged Claims were known at the time the application leading to the ’609 Patent was filed.” Prelim. Resp. 19; PO Resp. 20. Turning to the transformation prong of the test, “[a]ny transformation from the use of computers or the transfer of content between computers is merely what computers do and does not change the analysis.” Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 717. Moreover, as the Federal Circuit explained in CyberSource, the “mere collection and organization of data regarding credit card numbers and Internet addresses is insufficient to meet the transformation prong of the test.” 654 F.3d at 1370. Here, claim 81 recites receiving an electronic communication that includes digital data in fields, some of which include insurance transaction data and at least one of which includes attachment data, storing the electronic communication, and processing the electronic communication by determining which of the received data to display and displaying the selected data and the attachment on a GUI. Ex. 1003, 50:20–43. We agree with Petitioners that the claimed method merely collects and organizes data, which is insufficient to meet the transformation prong of the machine-or-transformation test. Dependent claims 83–88 also do not recite more than the mere collection and organization of data.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 8,676,609 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites MayoPatents in suitUS 8,676,609 - Travelers Lloyds Of Texas Insurance Co. / The Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Integrated Claims Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 30, 2016 · CBM2014-00187 · APJ Hyun J Jung · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 27, 30, 36, 42, 43, 45, and 50–52 are unpatentable under § 101; claim 27 is also anticipated by Toy under § 102. The motion to amend is granted.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“Supreme Court clarified the process for analyzing claims to determine whether claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. In Alice, the Supreme Court applied the framework set forth previously in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012), “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If they are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination”’ to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297, 1298). In other words, the second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’––i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). Further, the “prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment’ or adding ‘insignificant post solution activity.”’ Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610– 11 (2010) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.175, 191–92 (1981)).” slip op. at 22
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Board will interpret claims according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b). In our Decision to Institute, we construed “unitary data stream” to mean a “transmitted set of information.” Dec. on Inst. 13. The parties do not present arguments for another interpretation (see Reply 6), and based on the complete record, we do not perceive any reason or evidence that now compels any deviation from this interpretation.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s proposed construction reads a particular embodiment in the Abstract into claim 27, which only requires “a unitary data stream including N fields of data.” See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enter., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.”). “Parsing” does not seem to appear in the specification of the ’020 patent. We thus decline to accept Patent Owner’s proposed construction and give “parsing the unitary data stream” its ordinary and customary meaning.” slip op. at 21
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Patent Owner also proposes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “field” in view of the specification is a “computer software field” with citations to the specification. PO Resp. 15–24 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:32–37, 9:59–10:12, 10:19–35, 11:53–63, 13:40–14:20, 14:29–38, 15:26–47, 16:26– 32, 17:3–11, 18:5–18, 18:50–19:3, 19:61–20:6, 24:19–31, 24:38–43). Petitioner argues that the plain meaning should be applied. Reply 8. We do not see that the dispute impacts the analysis set forth in the Decision, so we need not decide between the two competing proposals. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 7,178,020 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipationcites Alice · Mayo · BilskiPatents in suitUS 7,178,020 - Travelers Lloyds Of Texas Insurance Co. / The Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Integrated Claims Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 30, 2016 · CBM2014-00186 · APJ Hyun J Jung · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1, 6, 10-17, and 28-31 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract idea without an inventive concept.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 6, 10–17, and 28–31 of the ’768 patent are unpatentable. We also grant the motion to amend and deny the motion to dismiss.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“MOTION TO AMEND In its Motion to Amend, Patent Owner moves to amend the ’768 patent by canceling claims 11 and 30. Paper 15, 1; see 35 U.S.C. § 316(d); 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(3) (“A motion to amend may cancel a challenged claim or propose a reasonable number of substitute claims.”). The Motion to Amend does not indicate that Patent Owner’s request to cancel claims 11 and 30 is contingent on the claims being determined to be unpatentable. We, therefore, grant the request.” slip op. at 42
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b). In our Institution Decision, we did not need to construe any term expressly. Patent Owner proposes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “field” in view of the specification is a “computer software field” with citations to the specification and claim 1. PO Resp. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 10:6–10, 12:66–13:38, 15:57–64, 17:62–66, 28:5–21). Petitioner argues that the plain meaning should be applied. Reply 6 (citing Ex. 1007, 8). We do not see that the dispute impacts the analysis set forth in the Decision, so we need not decide between the two competing proposals. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 21
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“Claim 1 requires accepting data, generating a first subset of that data, generating a second subset of that data, and transmitting the first and second subsets of data. Ex. 1001, 45:27–46. We determine that the subject matter of the challenged claims, when considered as a whole, is directed to an abstract idea, namely, examining information to extract relevant portions of that information. In particular, the complete record persuades us that the idea of examining information and extracting relevant portions of that information represents a disembodied, well-known concept, a basic building block of human ingenuity and rises to the level of an abstract idea. See Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Applying Mayo/Alice step one, we agree with the district court that the claims of the asserted patents are drawn to the abstract idea of 1) collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and 3) storing that recognized data in a memory. The concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known. Indeed, humans have always performed these functions.”); see also Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (“in applying the § 101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the ‘“building[g] block[s]”’ of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something more”) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1303).” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,346,768 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · BilskiPatents in suitUS 7,346,768 - Intermix Media, LLC v. Bally Gaming, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · 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 · BilskiPatents in suitUS 5,816,918 - Bank Of America, N.A. / PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. et al. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Jun 25, 2015 · CBM2014-00030 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 1–23 unpatentable under § 101 because no matter was overlooked or misapprehended and the Board did not abuse its discretion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, opposition, or a reply. In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355” slip op. at 3
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s expert does not rebut convincingly Dr. Myers’s claim-by-claim analysis. Instead, Patent Owner’s expert addresses the claims in two groups only. Ex. 2003, ¶¶ 26–28. We find this approach unconvincing, and therefore, credit Dr. Myers’s testimony as to specific claims over the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert.” slip op. at 8
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“Decision. The first statement, regarding “abstract level,” was cited twice in the Final Decision. In the first instance, the citation followed a discussion of the first element of the Alice test. Final Dec. 9. Patent Owner’s main argument was that the ʼ382 patent did not fall within the categories of unpatentable, abstract ideas enumerated in Alice. Without reference to Mr. Martin’s testimony, the Board agreed with Petitioners that these enumerated categories are not exclusive. Id. The Board went on to state in a sentence that they were “influenced” by Mr. Martin’s testimony, which is then quoted in full, in determining that the patent is directed to an abstract idea. But the Board also had before it Dr. Myers’ testimony to the same effect. Myers Decl. ¶¶ 24–27. The second citation of this statement by Mr. Martin, also in a single sentence,1 follows a lengthy discussion of the patent claims based on the oral argument and Dr. Myers’ analysis. Final Dec. 11–14.” slip op. at 6
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“[Patent Owner’s] supposed “inventive concept”—“delivering tailored web pages through an interactive interface as a function of web site navigation history”—fails to meet this standard. It is merely a restatement of the ’382 patent’s abstract idea (i.e., “tailoring an information provider’s web pages based on data about a particular information user”). This “concept” fails to include how to tailor web pages or use the web site navigation data. It therefore cannot “ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself,” as required by Alice Corp. Pet. Reply 5–6 (footnote omitted). Nor are we persuaded that the argument was overlooked or misapprehended by the Board. The Board considered all arguments presented. The Board was not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument on this issue. In fact, this argument was rejected by the Federal Circuit in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patent owner there argued “abstract ideas remain patent-eligible under §101 as long as they are new ideas, not previously well known, and not routine activity.” Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 714. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, concluding “[w]e agree with [defendant] that the claims of the ʼ545 patent are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter.” Id. Petitioners cite this very holding of Ultramercial in their response to Patent Owner’s “inventive concept” argument. Pet. Reply 5, n.1. We, therefore, did not overlook or misapprehend the “inventive concept” argument put forth by Patent Owner. We simply found Petitioners’ argument more persuasive under the prevailing legal authorities, including Ultramercial.” slip op. at 4
§ 101 eligibilitycites AlicePatents in suitUS 7,603,382 - Bank Of America, N.A. / PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. et al. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 19, 2015 · CBM2014-00029 · APJ Hyun J Jung · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of protecting billing data with substitute billing data using only generic, routine computer activity.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner replies, and we agree, that the claims of the ’701 patent do not require that “substitute billing data” be tied to an actual financial account or be tested by an existing payment system. Also, we determine that the Specification does not describe how billing data becomes valid. The portion of Patent Owner’s expert declaration cited in Patent Owner’s Response does not refer to any portion of the Specification. PO Resp. 11; Martin Decl. ¶¶ 35–37. Thus, Patent Owner’s arguments regarding “valid billing data” do not persuade us that “substitute billing data” applies only to electronic transactions. Based on our conclusions from the Specification of the ’701 patent regarding “client” and the lack of any disclosure for validating billing data and the complete record before us, we are not persuaded that the broadest, reasonable interpretation of “substitute billing data” requires only electronic transactions. We determine that the broadest, reasonable interpretation of “substitute billing data” in view of the Specification is “valid billing data that is owned and/or controlled by a billing service, where billing data is temporarily or permanently distributed to clients to replace personal and/or private billing data of the client.” See Ex. 1001, 3:11–16. Also, Patent Owner’s arguments for “substitute billing data” do not persuade us to modify our interpretation of “a substitute for said personal billing data” and “substitutes for personal billing data.”” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“The Specification of the ’701 patent also states that, “[f]or the purposes of this description, the phrase ‘web site’ is intended to be a general reference to a network ‘presence’ maintained by a business as well [as] a logical presence maintained on behalf of a business.” Ex. 1001, 2:66–3:2. When this statement is considered together with Patent Owner’s asserted definition of “businesses”—that “each of the network locations to which a client may communicate provide[s] a ‘web site’ for engaging in commercial transactions”—the ’701 patent uses “businesses” or “business” to refer to the network locations, web sites, network presences or logical presences maintained by or on behalf of a business. Thus, we interpret “business” or “businesses” to mean the “network locations, web sites, network presences or logical presences maintained by or on behalf of a business.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480.” slip op. at 11
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“C. Are the ’701 Patent Claims Directed to Abstract Ideas? Petitioner argues that “the claims are directed to the basic idea of protecting personal billing data from thieves and hackers by providing ‘substitute billing data’ to a consumer for making online purchasing transactions.” Pet. 21. Patent Owner responds that Petitioner’s proposed abstract idea “does not rise to the level of a ‘fundamental building block’ of technology, of economic behavior, or of human organization.” PO Resp. 24–25 (citing Pet. 21), 27–28 (citing Martin Decl. ¶ 76); Tr. 56:15–22. Patent Owner also argues that, even if online purchasing transactions were a “fundamental building block,” the claims are directed to “a very specific subset of transactions that use a specific subset of ‘substitute billing data.’” Id. at 28–29 (citing Martin Decl. ¶ 17). Petitioner replies that “there is no rule that an idea is abstract only if it falls within a particular category of abstract ideas.” Reply 8–9. We are persuaded by the Supreme Court’s opinion in Alice that Petitioner is correct, and that these enumerated categories were not intended as exclusive. Specifically, the Court wrote: “In any event, we need not labor to delimit the precise contours of the ‘abstract ideas’ category in this case.” 134 S. Ct. at 2357; accord Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347. Furthermore, providing substitute billing data is similar in principle to using a purchasing agent. We, therefore, conclude that the first step in the Alice/Mayo test is met for claims 1–18 of the ’701 patent.” slip op. at 20
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“Three of the four steps of claim 1 recite an “electronic device facilitating . . .” and the last step recites the “electronic device obtaining” The plain and ordinary meaning of “electronic device” does not tie claim 1 “to any particular novel machine or apparatus, only a general purpose computer.” See Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716. In arguing that the “electronic device” is integral to the claim, Patent Owner cites its expert declaration, but the declaration relies on Patent Owner’s proposed interpretations of “substitute billing data” and “billing service,” which we did not adopt. See Martin Decl. ¶¶ 69–77. Also, the words of the claim do not specify how the electronic device facilitates or obtains the recited activities. Claim 1 generally recites the activities of requesting credit card numbers, obtaining credit card numbers as a substitute for personal billing data, and purchasing from businesses associated with the credit card numbers. We find no persuasive evidence in the record that claim 1 recites more than “well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298. Thus, based on the complete record before us, we conclude that method claim 1, which merely requires generic computer implementation, fails to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 7,664,701 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · BilskiPatents in suitUS 7,664,701
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.