4:07-cv-00185
E.D. Mo.May 15, 2012Background
- Advanced Software sues Fiserv for patent infringement of the ’110 patent (claims 1 and 9) relating to validating negotiable instruments via encrypted control codes.
- Claims 1 (process) and 9 (system) require encryption of selected information with key information to generate a control code printed on the instrument.
- Preambles define the environment and are not part of the claims; the invention uses a computer-implemented encryption/validation process.
- The court previously denied summary judgment on validity and infringement and now denies additional invalidity motions and motions to exclude testimony.
- Court finds §101 threshold met but finds genuine disputes of material fact on anticipation, obviousness, and infringement limitations, warranting trial.
- The case is set for trial; the court orders denial of the pending motions to invalidate or exclude expert testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patent eligibility under §101 | Advanced Software argues claims pass §101 as a valid application. | Fiserv contends abstract idea/law of nature. | Passes §101 threshold; not abstract.” |
| Anticipation and obviousness validity | Past references fail to anticipate; combination would be non-obvious. | Prior art, including Ehrat/ Pastor, could anticipate/obviousness. | Genuine disputes of fact remain; summary judgment denied on anticipation/obviousness. |
| Infringement and claim limitations | Secure Seal meets all claim limitations. | Environmental/preamble and validation steps not all met; non-infringement. | Genuine disputes on key limitations preclude summary judgment of infringement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (Sup. Ct. 2012) (law of nature/abstract ideas subject matter not patentable; threshold inquiry)
- Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (Sup. Ct. 2010) (machine-or-transformation test; abstract ideas guidance)
- Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (U.S. 1972) (patent on algorithm preemption concerns)
- Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (U.S. 1981) (application of a mathematical formula to known structures can be patentable)
- Cybersource Corp. v. Retail Decisions Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (claims directed to abstract data-collection steps may be non-patentable)
- Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (claims directed to abstract ideas preempting innovation; computer-aided steps insufficient)
- Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, 657 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (programming a computer to perform specified functions can satisfy machine-like transformation)
- Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co., 667 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (patent validity standards; clear-and-convincing evidence for anticipation)