• Tiz Inc. D/B/A Provi v. Jason K. SmithAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 23, 2022 · CBM2020-00029 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract idea without integrating it into a practical application or adding an inventive concept.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “For the reasons expressed below, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that claims 1–19 are unpatentable as being directed to ineligible subject matter.” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “C. Level of Skill in the Art Based on the full trial record, including our review of the ’585 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’585 patent and cited reference materials, we agree with Dr. Min that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree or higher in electrical engineering, computer science or computer networking, and at least 2 years working experience designing communication systems.” See Ex. 1008 ¶ 21. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art.2 See generally PO Resp. 2 In opposing Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude, Patent Owner states that “the Board should modify its definition of person of ordinary skill in the art,” Opp. Exclude 5 n.1, but never proposes a different definition and does not dispute Petitioner’s definition in its Response or Sur-Reply.” slip op. at 19

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Petitioner does not propose any explicit constructions for any claim terms. See Pet. 44. Patent Owner also does not propose any explicit constructions for any claim terms. See PO. Resp. We determine that no explicit construction is necessary in order to resolve the issues before us.” slip op. at 19

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

    “items by collecting, analyzing, and transmitting information related to inventory, promotions, and particular sellers” is not an abstract idea because it “requires multiple steps that may or may not be implicated (collecting, analyzing, and transmitting) for information from multiple sources that may or may not be used (inventory, promotions, distributors, i.e., ‘particular sellers’).” PO Resp. 33–34. Contrary to Patent Owner’s position, we do not agree that this abstract idea (or the claims) requires a complex or complicated, multi-step process. Rather, the claims are directed to the collecting, analyzing, and transmitting of information. Claim 1, for example, requires only a list and inventory order of “one or more products” (i.e., the claim may be satisfied with only a single product). The Federal Circuit has explained that, generally, “claims focused on ‘collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis’ are directed to an abstract idea.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). “Information as such is an intangible,” hence abstract, and “collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), [i]s within the realm of abstract ideas.” Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1353 (citing cases). Thus, even assuming that different types of information may be implicated by a claim limitation, the fact remains that the type or source of information, e.g., inventory, promotions, distributors,” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 10,467,585 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Enfish · Electric Power · Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,467,585
• Square, Inc. v. Electronic Receipts Delivery Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2021 · CBM2020-00015 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable under § 101 and the asserted Moran-based anticipation and obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “been “charged with infringement,” Pet. 10, but that statement does not foreclose reading that allegation as a charge of infringement against Petitioner. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a), “[c]harged with infringement means a real and substantial controversy regarding infringement of a covered business method patent exists such that the petitioner would have standing to bring a declaratory judgment action in Federal court.” “[W]here a patent holder accuses customers of direct infringement based on the sale or use of a supplier’s equipment, the supplier has standing to commence a declaratory judgment action if,” for instance, “there is a controversy between the patentee and the supplier as to the supplier’s liability for induced or contributory infringement based on acts of direct infringement by its customers.” Arris Group, Inc. v. British Telecomm. PLC, 639 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also ABB Inc. v. Cooper Indus., LLC, 635 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding federal court had subject matter jurisdiction over claim for declaratory judgment of noninfringement where the plaintiff “had an interest in determining whether it would be liable for indemnification, which turned on whether [its contractor] would be liable for infringement”). Further, an allegation of direct infringement of a U.S. patent against the manufacturer’s customers may amount to an implicit allegation of indirect infringement against the manufacturer. Arris Group, 638 F.3d at 1375–76. Petitioner has shown persuasively that it sought to intervene in the district court litigation against its customers to “seek a declaratory judgement that [the] Square Register and Square’s other products and services do not infringe any valid claim of the ’551 [p]atent.” Ex. 1034, 3; Reply 1011. Patent Owner, the plaintiff in that suit, consented to the motion. Ex. 1034, 7; Reply 11. The district court granted Petitioner’s motion to intervene and Petitioner filed its Complaint in Intervention in district court, deeming Petitioner the “true defendant” in the dispute. See Reply 6; Ex. 1018. There is no question that the underlying district court litigation in which Petitioner seeks to assert non-infringement of the ’551 patent stems from Patent Owner’s allegations that Petitioner’s products directly or indirectly infringe the ’551 patent. These facts prove that Petitioner’s involvement in the district court litigation as an intervenor, together with Patent Owner’s accusation of infringement in its Answer and Affirmative Defenses, show a real and substantial controversy between Patent Owner and Petitioner. And the record shows that a federal court indeed has exercised jurisdiction over Patent Owner’s claim of infringement against Petitioner as intervenor, with Petitioner actually defending such a claim. This is sufficient to conclude that at the time of the filing of the Petition, Petitioner had been charged with infringement, and, therefore, had standing to file the Petition in this proceeding.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “The parties do not identify claim constructions necessary for the Board to resolve the issues in this proceeding. Pet. 12; see generally Prelim. Resp.; PO Resp. We determine that it is unnecessary to expressly construe any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only terms in controversy must be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelOther

    “Petitioner proffers that [a] person of ordinary skill in the art . . . would have a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Data Science or Electrical Engineering or any undergraduate degree plus three to five years of professional experience in software development, computer programming, or network engineering or equivalent additional formal education such as graduate studies, or work experience to replace formal education. Pet. 13 (citing Hochman Decl. ¶¶ 16–22). There is no dispute as to whether Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art is appropriate in this case. We do not find it necessary to define the level of skill with specificity save to note that the level of ordinary skill is evidenced by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating that the absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown).” slip op. at 23

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

    “components “implemented in a generic computer environment” for performing that abstract idea. Pet. 68. Petitioner further annotates claim 1 to provide identifiers for each limitation. Id. For this part of the analysis, we address specifically limitation [vi], which recites “automatically transmitting a digital receipt for the transaction to the destination associated with the first customer without input from the first customer.” Limitation [vi] recites transmission of a credit card receipt according to instructions previously provided by the credit card user, which constitutes a fundamental economic practice, one of the certain methods of organizing human activity identified in the Guidance as a judicial exception. See Pet. 74 (arguing that issuing receipts for a purchase transaction is “nothing more than the organization of a fundamental and economic activity”). The claim’s recitation of an “automatic[]” transmission does not alter the fundamental business transaction recited in the claim: providing a customer a receipt for a credit card charge. The limitation provides no technological detail of how to automate the transmission of such a receipt or how to effectuate the delivery to a “destination.” See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“At best, the claims describe the automation of the fundamental economic concept of offer-based price optimization through the use of generic-computer functions.”). The recitation of a “digital” receipt does not alter our analysis either. The modifier adds only that the receipt is in electronic form. The claim language, however, is silent as to how such a receipt is generated or otherwise prepared for transmission to the credit card user. There is no technological detail that would place the “digital” receipt outside of an abstract idea of a fundamental economic practice of providing a credit card receipt to a customer. The other recited limitations also support our determination that the claims are directed to an abstract idea of a fundamental economic practice. For instance, in its simplest form the claimed process includes three basic steps: registering a customer e-mail address for receiving credit card digital receipts (steps [i]—[ii]), initiating a credit card transaction for a sales transaction of the customer (steps [iii]—[v]), and transmitting the digital receipt in accordance with the information received and stored in steps [i] and [ii]. Thus, the claim explains the basic concept of providing a credit card receipt to a customer. These recited steps place no meaningful limit on the claim scope, as the claim lacks specificity as to how any computer or database is specially programmed to perform the claimed steps. See Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Simply adding a ‘computer aided’ limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible.”). Each of claims 11 and 16 also recites the automatic transmission of a digital receipt for a credit card transaction to a user. Petitioner provides an explanation accounting for those claims, see id. at 93–94, and our analysis of claim 1 concerning the determination of an abstract idea equally applies to those claims. We determine that Petitioner has shown that claims 1, 11, and 16 recite a fundamental economic practice, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity identified in the Guidance as a judicially excepted abstract idea.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 8,534,551 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,534,551
• Quantile Technologies Limited v. Trioptima ABAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 17, 2021 · CBM2020-00011 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–22 are unpatentable under § 101; the contingent motion to amend proposing substitute claims 23–28 is denied because those claims are also ineligible.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Id. at 32:41–33:15 (emphasis added). The combination of the elements italicized above recites the concept of simplifying a trade portfolio through premature termination of certain transactions. The claimed system accomplishes this through collecting information, linking related information together, and then using mathematical techniques on the information to generate a “proposal package” of transactions for “termination and assignment.” This is all a mental process, an example of an abstract idea.” slip op. at 24

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

    “Claim 1 uses a generic processor to perform well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, such as receiving and analyzing data and performing mathematical calculations. See Bancorp Servs., L.L.C v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he use of a computer in an otherwise patent-ineligible process for no more than its most basic function--making calculations or computations-- fails to circumvent the prohibition against patenting abstract ideas and mental processes.”). We do not discern any claimed element for accomplishing the claimed solution that is other than what was generically known for performing those conventional functions. See Credit Acceptance, 859 F.3d at 1057 (“[T]he claims do not provide details as to any non-conventional software for enhancing the financing process.”); see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Our law demands more” than claim language that “provides only a result-oriented solution, with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it.”); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (explaining that claims are directed to an abstract idea where they do not recite “any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing [conventional] functions”). Despite Patent Owner’s assertions that the claim steps add enough to make the claims patentable, we find the bare recitation of the steps performed by a generic processor at a high level of generality is insufficient to supply an inventive concept.” slip op. at 39

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

    “The combination of the elements italicized above recites the concept of simplifying a trade portfolio through premature termination of certain transactions. The claimed system accomplishes this through collecting information, linking related information together, and then using mathematical techniques on the information to generate a “proposal package” of transactions for “termination and assignment.” This is all a mental process, an example of an abstract idea. Patent Owner’s efforts to mimic the claim language in McRO does not change the result here. To begin with, the Supreme Court has cautioned against patent eligibility turning on the claim drafter’s art. See Flook, 437 U.S. at 593 (stating that patent eligibility does not turn “on the draftsman’s art”). Thus, merely parroting some language of an eligible claim of a completely different invention does not make the claims for this invention any less abstract. More importantly, the fact that the language is similar does not change the fundamental differences between the claimed invention here and the invention that was claimed in McRO. Proposed substitute claims 26, 27, and 28 are similar to proposed substitute claim 25 and add similar limitations that do not take the claim outside the realm of abstract ideas for Step 1 of the Alice inquiry. Accordingly, Petitioner has shown that the proposed substitute claims” slip op. at 61

  • 101 substituteMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “The combination of the elements italicized above recites the concept of simplifying a trade portfolio through premature termination of certain transactions. The claimed system accomplishes this through collecting information, linking related information together, and then using mathematical techniques on the information to generate a “proposal package” of transactions for “termination and assignment.” This is all a mental process, an example of an abstract idea. Patent Owner’s efforts to mimic the claim language in McRO does not change the result here. To begin with, the Supreme Court has cautioned against patent eligibility turning on the claim drafter’s art. See Flook, 437 U.S. at 593 (stating that patent eligibility does not turn “on the draftsman’s art”). Thus, merely parroting some language of an eligible claim of a completely different invention does not make the claims for this invention any less abstract. More importantly, the fact that the language is similar does not change the fundamental differences between the claimed invention here and the invention that was claimed in McRO. Proposed substitute claims 26, 27, and 28 are similar to proposed substitute claim 25 and add similar limitations that do not take the claim outside the realm of abstract ideas for Step 1 of the Alice inquiry. Accordingly, Petitioner has shown that the proposed substitute claims” slip op. at 61

  Patent outcomesUS 7,613,649 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibilitycites Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Electric Power · Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,613,649
• American Express Company / American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. v. Signature Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 30, 2019 · CBM2018-00035 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 14 are unpatentable under § 101; proposed substitute claims 17–20 are unpatentable under § 101, and the contingent motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “F. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)” slip op. at 32

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “For the above reasons, we are persuaded that Petitioner has met its” slip op. at 62

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Decided for petitioner

    “1. Principles of Law Use of the word “means” in a claim gives rise to a rebuttable” slip op. at 12

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

    “Further, based on the entirety of the record, we determine that proposed substitute claims 17–20 are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence based on 35 U.S.C. § 101. Motion to Amend Outcome Claims Substitute Claims: Proposed in the Amendment 17–20 Substitute Claims: Motion to Amend Denied 17–20” slip op. at 101

  Patent outcomesUS 8,423,402 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 8,423,402
• DISH Network Corporation / DISH Network L.L.C. v. Customedia Technologies, L.L.C.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 25, 2018 · CBM2017-00032 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–7, 16–19, 23–24, 26–28, 32–36, and 41 are unpatentable under § 101; the petitioner did not show claims 17, 18, 23, 24, and 28 unpatentable under § 112.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenOther

    “Considering each claim limitation, as well as each explicit citation to the specification expressly set forth in the Petition, we are persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, via analysis and evidence explicitly set forth on pages 6–7 of the Petition, that independent claim 1, as a whole, does not recite a technological feature that is novel or unobvious.” slip op. at 22

  • Adverse judgmentOther

    “Response (Paper 24, “PO Resp.”) and disclaimed claims 5, 25, 39, and 43 (Ex. 2006). Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 38, “Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 40, “PO Sur”), and Petitioner filed a Response to the Sur-Reply (Paper 41, “Pet. Sur”).” slip op. at 2

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

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Claim Construction Petitioner and Patent Owner dispute the construction of certain claim terms. Pet. 23–28; PO Resp. 34–46. We apply the constructions of those terms set forth in Paper 49 in this decision.” slip op. at 7

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

    “We agree. The preambles of independent claims 1, 19, and 33 expressly state as much. In particular, the preamble of claims 1 and 33 provide: “A system for providing targeted advertising to a multimedia content end user” (claim 1) or “a plurality of multimedia content end users” (claim 33). Ex. 1003, 46:13–14, 49:59–60. Likewise, claim 19’s preamble refers to “[a] device for providing targeted advertising to an end user.” Id. at 48:20–21. Taking claim 1 as a representative example, the remainder of the claim recites certain tangible components, namely a “storage device” and specifically, an “addressable and reserved storage space”; a “processor”; and “software implemented by” the processor. Id. at 46:13–28. The claim further requires the following functionalities: the processor “reserv[ing]” the storage space; the processor “select[ing] particular advertising data suitable for targeting to at least one end user based upon predefined criteria data”; the storage space “storing digital advertising data” and specifically, the “particular advertising data”; and the “particular advertising data” being “accessible to” the user. Id. Thus, we are persuaded that claim 1, taken as a whole, is focused on the concept of providing targeted advertising to a user. Further, the claims merely invoke computers as a tool to implement the concept of targeted advertising, and are not directed to any improvement in computer functionality. See Pet. 34; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 944–945. The claims recite generic components and functionality. For example, in claim 1, the required components, outlined above—a storage device and specifically, a storage space, a processor, and software— are conventional. The recited functionalities—reserving the storage space for advertising data, selecting advertising data targeted to a user, storing that data, and making that data accessible to the user—are likewise basic and routine. As Petitioner points out, the specification expressly acknowledges that some of the tangible components of the recited system were known. See Pet. 7–8, 33–34, 40–75; Ex. 1008 ¶ 949. For instance, the specification refers to storage device 14 as “any medium known in the art for storing electronic data” and similarly, “any storage device for audio/video information known in the art.” Ex. 1003, 13:22–28, 15:1–5, 24:66–25:7; see id. at [57], 5:3–6, 21:42–22:2. The testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Negus, also persuade us that each recited component and functionality was generic, conventional, and known. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 945, 949–954; see id. ¶¶ 955–987.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 9,053,494 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Mayo · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 9,053,494
• Ebay Inc. / Paypal, Inc. v. XPRT Ventures, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 23, 2018 · CBM2017-00029 · APJ Michael R Zecher · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 9 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim pre-authorized automatic auction payments using conventional computer components, without an inventive concept.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “4. Summary In summary, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that all of the challenged claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” slip op. at 34

  • Skill levelOther
  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Claim Construction In a covered business method patent review, we interpret claim terms in an unexpired patent according to the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears. 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b). “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner proposes a construction for the claim term “web site.” Pet. 23. We, however, need not address the construction of any claim term to resolve the issues before us.” slip op. at 17

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that independent claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, and we adopt Petitioner’s description of the abstract idea as using a payment account to automatically effect a pre-authorized financial transaction in an electronic auction. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s description of the abstract idea, other than by making the conclusory statement that the challenged claims are not directed to an abstract idea based on Federal Circuit precedent and USPTO examination guidance. See PO Resp. 7. The language of independent claim 1 supports the finding that it is directed to the abstract idea of using a payment account to automatically effect a pre-authorized financial transaction in an electronic auction. This claim recites a method for automatically effecting payment by a process that includes the steps of maintaining and storing funds in payment accounts for use in transactions in an electronic auction system; receiving authorization prior to an electronic auction to execute an automatic payment; and executing the automatic payment by deducting and transferring funds from a payment account. Ex. 1001, 18:20–53. This purchaser-seller arrangement is not meaningfully distinct from the financial arrangements found to be abstract ideas in Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356 (“method of exchanging financial obligations between two parties using a third-party intermediary to mitigate settlement risk”), and Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 599 (2010) (arrangement between buyers and sellers to purchase commodities in the energy market at a fixed rate as a way of protecting, or “hedging,” against risks of price changes). The Supreme Court has explained that concepts like intermediated settlement and risk hedging are abstract ideas beyond the scope of 35 U.S.C. § 101 as they are “a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356 (quoting Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611). Likewise, in this case, the concept of using a payment account to automatically effect a pre-authorized financial transaction is a fundamental economic practice.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 7,567,937 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Bilski · Enfish · Electric Power
  Patents in suitUS 7,567,937
• Ebay Inc. / Paypal, Inc. v. XPRT Ventures, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 23, 2018 · CBM2017-00025 · APJ Kevin F Turner · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 13–15 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of using a loan to effect a financial transaction without an inventive concept.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We preliminarily determined that the information presented in the Petition established that the ’528 Patent qualifies as a covered business method patent that is eligible for review, and that it was more likely than not that the challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Paper 8. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324 and § 18(a) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 329–31 (2011), we instituted a covered business method patent review as to all of the challenged claims. Id.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “Considering the claim elements as an ordered combination, each claimed method, as a whole, is simply indicative of the abstract idea of using a loan to effect a financial transaction when a buyer has insufficient funds in his or her payment account. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359–60 (explaining that the application of an abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention). There is no indication on the record developed during trial that these claims improve the functioning of a computer, or result in an improvement in any other technology or technical field. See id. at 2359. On the contrary, Dr. Neuman’s unrebutted testimony explains that the computer components recited in the claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, and viewed as a whole, the claims simply recite the well-known, conventional process of debiting and crediting a funded account. Ex. 1005 ¶ 36. Furthermore, there is no evidence of record that independent claim 13 is like those of BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC (i.e., a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces”). 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). BASCOM explains that where claims “merely recite the abstract idea . . . along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet, or to perform it on a set of generic computer components[, s]uch claims would not contain an inventive concept.” Id. Rather, the ’528 Patent seems to indicate that the existing payment process is simply made faster and more efficient in that an immediate, real-time payment is made without the winning bidder having to access a payment page, through the use of a conventional computing network. See Ex. 1001, 4:30–34, Fig. 1; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 20–24. Meanwhile, the method of independent claim 13 may offer an improvement to the previously-known manual processes identified in the ’528 Patent––the need for a winning bidder “to draft checks, obtain money orders, etc. and mail them to the various sellers” (Ex. 1001, 3:3–4), or to “enter his credit card information” (id. at 3:15), or for the website operator and seller to exchange e-mails to authorize a commission payment (id. at 3:26–34). “But merely ‘configur[ing]’ generic computers in order to ‘supplant and enhance’ an otherwise abstract manual process is precisely the sort of invention that the Alice Court deemed ineligible for patenting.” Credit Acceptance Corp., 859 F.3d at 1056 (alteration in original). Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the claim elements recited” slip op. at 29

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “in an unexpired patent according to the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears. 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b). “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner proposes a construction for the claim term “web site.” Pet. 20. We, however, need not address the construction of any claim term to resolve the issues before us.” slip op. at 16

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that independent claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea, and we adopt Petitioner’s description of the abstract idea as using a loan to effectuate a financial transaction in an electronic auction. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s description of the abstract idea, other than by making the conclusory statement that the challenged claims are not directed to an abstract idea based on Federal Circuit precedent and USPTO examination guidance. See PO Resp. 7–8. The language of independent claim 13 supports the finding that it is directed to the abstract idea of using a loan to effect a financial transaction when a buyer has insufficient funds in his or her payment account. This independent claim recites methods for effecting payment by a process that includes the steps of providing the user with the option to enable the loaning of funds, through receipt of a user’s authorization, and loaning funds to effect the payment if insufficient funds are determined for a payment source. Ex. 1001, 20:13–37. This purchaser-seller arrangement is not meaningfully distinct from the activity relating to commercial practices found to be abstract ideas in Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356 (“method of exchanging financial obligations between two parties using a third-party intermediary to mitigate settlement risk”) and Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 599 (2010) (arrangement between buyers and sellers to purchase commodities in the energy market at a fixed rate as a way of protecting, or “hedging,” against risks of price changes). The Supreme Court has explained that concepts like intermediated settlement and risk hedging are abstract ideas beyond the scope of 35 U.S.C. § 101 as they are “a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356 (quoting Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611). Likewise, in this case, the concept of using a loan to effect a financial transaction when a buyer has insufficient funds in his or her payment account is a fundamental economic practice.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,627,528 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 7,627,528
• Yahoo! Inc. v. Almondnet, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Feb 5, 2018 · CBM2017-00047 · APJ Michael W Kim · CBM · Rehearing

  The Board denied Yahoo!’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution on the § 101 challenge to claims 1, 2-4, 11-13, 16-17, and 20-22.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “requesting party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2

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

    “matter, resolution of this issue in Petitioner’s favor is not dispositive, as Petitioner still failed to account sufficiently for the terms “offsite” and “targeted” (to say nothing of “first Internet site,” “second Internet site,” and directing off-site advertisements to visitors of the second Internet site as a consequence of determining visits to the first Internet site “using the tags and the records,” as also recited in claim 1). See Decision 11–14. Moreover, Petitioner’s assertion is incorrect, as while certainly at times, an omission of “Internet” from an identification of what a claim is directed to is proper, our review of the case law cited by Petitioner does not support a blanket assertion that the term “Internet” should never be considered in this manner, under any circumstances. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256–57 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (under Alice step one, the court held that “[a]lthough the claims address a business challenge (retaining website visitors), it is a challenge particular to the Internet”). We are unpersuaded that we could have misapprehended or overlooked that which is incorrect.” slip op. at 6

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 not directed to exceptionNot shown unpatentable

    “matter, resolution of this issue in Petitioner’s favor is not dispositive, as Petitioner still failed to account sufficiently for the terms “offsite” and “targeted” (to say nothing of “first Internet site,” “second Internet site,” and directing off-site advertisements to visitors of the second Internet site as a consequence of determining visits to the first Internet site “using the tags and the records,” as also recited in claim 1). See Decision 11–14. Moreover, Petitioner’s assertion is incorrect, as while certainly at times, an omission of “Internet” from an identification of what a claim is directed to is proper, our review of the case law cited by Petitioner does not support a blanket assertion that the term “Internet” should never be considered in this manner, under any circumstances. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256–57 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (under Alice step one, the court held that “[a]lthough the claims address a business challenge (retaining website visitors), it is a challenge particular to the Internet”). We are unpersuaded that we could have misapprehended or overlooked that which is incorrect.” slip op. at 6

  § 101 eligibility
  Patents in suitUS 8,244,586
• Yahoo! Inc. v. Almondnet, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Feb 5, 2018 · CBM2017-00046 · APJ Michael W Kim · CBM · Rehearing

  The Board denied Yahoo!’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution on the § 101 challenge to claims 1–8, 10, 13–16, 24, 27–29, 31, 32, 36, 37, 39, and 41–47.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. ANALYSIS A request for rehearing must identify specifically all matters the requesting party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 not directed to exceptionNot shown unpatentable

    “targeted” (to say nothing of “first Internet site,” “second Internet site,” and directing off-site advertisements to visitors of the second Internet site as a consequence of determining visits to the first Internet site “using the tags and the records,” as also recited in claim 1). See Decision 11–14. Moreover, Petitioner’s assertion is incorrect, as while certainly at times, an omission of “Internet” from an identification of what a claim is directed to is proper, our review of the case law cited by Petitioner does not support a blanket assertion that the term “Internet” should never be considered in this manner, under any circumstances. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256–57 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (under Alice step one, the court held that “[a]lthough the claims address a business challenge (retaining website visitors), it is a challenge particular to the Internet”). We are unpersuaded that we could have misapprehended or overlooked that which is incorrect. slip op. at 6

  § 101 eligibility
  Patents in suitUS 7,822,639
• Emerson Electric Co. v. Sipco, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 16, 2018 · CBM2016-00095 · APJ Joni Y Chang · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 7, 9, 16, and 17 are unpatentable under § 101 and § 103(a) over Tymes; unpatentability under § 112, ¶ 1 was not shown.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments, as they conflate “power” with “transmission range”—the claim term recites “low-power,” not “low-transmission range.” We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s proposed construction would import improperly a limitation into the claims, and we credit Mr. James T. Geier’s testimony (Ex. 1038 ¶¶ 34−39) as it consistent with the other evidence of record before us. We address below each of Patent Owner’s arguments in turn. First, Patent Owner argues that “the claim language itself indicates that the claimed low-power transceiver transmits low-power signals,” citing the language of claim 2, “wherein the low-power signal comprises a logical IP address.” PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 1001, 14:60–61). However, “the low-power signal” does not necessarily require a transceiver to transmit signals having a limited transmission range. Patent Owner does not explain meaningfully, or provide persuasive evidence to show, how a “low-power signal” is necessarily related to the transmission range of a transceiver. Consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term, “a low-power transceiver” refers to a transceiver that consumes less power, e.g., by transmitting and receiving low power signals. Ex. 1038 ¶¶ 34−39.” slip op. at 23

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

    “However, Patent Owner’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. The purported problems that arose with the development of networks hosting wireless device—unlawful interruption of that data, interference, and contention—are addressed by using an extremely low-power transmitter. Ex. 1001, 5:65−6:11. As discussed above, the challenged claims recite a generic “low-power transceiver,” not an extremely low-power transmitter. Additionally, the alleged problem of transforming data to a different protocol is addressed by an unclaimed feature, as the ’842 patent itself recognizes that the invention is not necessarily limited to certain protocol or requires a protocol conversion. Id. at 13:55−14:5. Moreover, the challenged claims do not requires a protocol conversion or recite a device for converting data from one protocol to a different protocol. Rather, they recite generically a “network of addressable devices.” Patent Owner’s argument that the claims are “directed to an improvement in communication technology between remote devices that are accessible by wireless communication and a central location via a circuit interface” is unavailing. Significantly, the claims are not directed to a new type of transceiver, interface circuit, or controller to establish a communication link between a remote device and the central location. Instead, the claims are directed to transmitting data between locations using conventional or generic computer components. The challenged claims essentially recite a device for communicating information that comprises: (1) a low-power transceiver for transmitting or receiving data; (2) an interface circuit for communicating with a central 33 location; and (3) a controller for establishing a communication link. The Specification confirms that these features were known in the art. Ex. 1001, 5:23–25, 6:62–64 (“As is well known by those skilled in the art, a variety of transducers can perform this functionality adequately.”), 10:13–15 (“[T]he controller 256 may be a general purpose microprocessor or microcontroller.”), 10:21–23 (“The interface 258 within the transceiver 270 is designed to interface with this typical/standard telephone circuitry 263.”), 10:23–26 (“The specific implementation of the circuitry of [interface] 258 will be appreciated by persons skilled in the art and need not be described in detail herein.”). Indeed, the FCC Bulletin also confirms that low-power wireless transmitters were “used virtually everywhere,” noting that “[c]ordless phones, baby monitors, garage door openers, wireless home security systems, keyless automobile entry systems and hundreds of other types of common electronic equipment rely on such transmitters to function.” Ex. 2001, 1. Moreover, the ’842 patent itself recognizes that the communication link between the remote device and central location can be established by initiating a phone call over a telephone line that is part of the public-switched telephone network. Ex. 1001, 2:34−38. There is no dispute that such a communication link was known in the art. Id. at 10:21−26.” slip op. at 33

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

    “38 For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that claims 1, 7, 9, 16, and 17 of the ’842 patent are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Whether the challenged claims lack a patent-eligible inventive concept Turning to the second step in the analysis, we look for additional elements that can “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea. That is, we determine whether the claims include an “inventive concept,” i.e., an element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the abstract idea itself. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357. The additional elements must be more than “well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” Mayo, 768 S. Ct. at 1297−98. Here, Petitioner argues that claims 1, 7, 9, 16, and 17 are unpatentable because they are “directed only to an abstract idea with nothing more added than generic computing components and ‘well-understood, routine, conventional activity’ previously performed in the field (both individually and as an ordered combination in the claims).” Pet. 23–24 (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). According to Petitioner, the challenged claims “recite the concept of establishing a communication route between two points ‘as performed by a generic computer,’ without disclosing any ‘novel or unusual’ improvement to ‘the functioning of the computer itself’ or any ‘advance in computer technology that makes the performance of [routine] functions more effective.” Id. at 24 (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358–60). 39” slip op. at 38

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “As Petitioner notes (Pet. 66−68; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 353−366), Tymes discloses “an improved, low-cost, low-power, data communication network in which a number of remote terminal units are able to send packets of data to a central station, and . . . to receive acknowledge signals and data from the central station.” Ex. 1005, 2:36−56 (emphasis added). Tymes describes that the central station includes a number of base stations connected to a central computer. Id. at 3:21−25. As shown in Figure 1, the network includes base stations 12−14, each of which “is coupled by an RF link to a number of remote units.” Id. at 4:61−5:44. The RF link is used for sending “data packets from the remote terminals to the base stations and return.” Id. at 3:48−51 (emphasis added), 6:66–7:2. In fact, Tymes teaches that the “advantage of this type of RF data link is that a band may be used which does not require site licensing by the F.C.C.” Id. at 3:55−59. Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion that “low-power” refers to only the remote terminals, Tymes describes a low-power network that includes base stations. As Petitioner also notes (Pet. 66–67, n.38), Tymes teaches an “indoor” limited range network and an RF data link “usable without site licensing under F.C.C. regulations, so that the expense and delays incident to such licensing are eliminated or minimized.” Ex. 1005, 2:36–56. Significantly, Tymes discloses that the optimum frequency is in the 902−928 MHz range 54 for the RF transceivers in the base stations. Id. at 6:66–7:2, 13:58–61, 18:1−3. The FCC limits the power for unlicensed transmitters, and the power limit under the FCC regulations is less than or equal to one watt for the disclosed 902–928 MHz range. Ex. 1010, 217; Ex. 1017, 7:9–11, 31–34. Mr. Geier testifies that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have understood that an indoor communications network as taught by Tymes requires only a limited range (e.g., 1 mile or less (the length of a storage facility)), so that high-powered transceivers would be unnecessary and disfavored,” and that such an artisan “would have considered a transmission of 1 Watt to be a ‘low-power’ transmission, with a limited range of approximately 1 mile.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 358−359. Mr. Geier also testifies that such an artisan would have had a reason to use low-power transceivers in the base stations so that they are usable indoors without licensing under the FCC regulations. Id. We credit Mr. Geier’s testimony as it is consistent with Tymes’ teachings and other evidence. Ex. 1005, 2:36–56, 6:66–7:2, 13:58−61, 18:1−3, Figs. 1, 3, 10; Ex. 1010, 21; Ex. 1017, 7:9−11, 29−34 (explaining that “unlicensed systems using conventional modulation techniques attain ranges on the order of 500−1000 feet” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 54

  Patent outcomesUS 8,908,842 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,908,842

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.