Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Directv, LLC
838 F.3d 1253
| Fed. Cir. | 2016Background
- Affinity Labs owns U.S. Patent No. 7,970,379, which includes independent system and method claims directed to streaming regional broadcast signals to cellular phones located outside the broadcaster’s region.
- Representative claim 1 recites a network-based resource, a downloadable application on a wireless cellular telephone that (1) displays selectable regional channels via a GUI, (2) transmits a request for a regional channel, and (3) receives a streaming media signal when the phone is outside the broadcast region.
- Affinity sued nine defendants for infringement; defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
- The magistrate judge and district court applied the Mayo/Alice two-step framework, held the patent claims were directed to an abstract idea (out-of-region dissemination of regional broadcast content), and found no inventive concept in the claims.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed, reasoning the claims recite a broad, result-focused idea implemented with generic, conventional phone and network components and lack any specific technical solution or improvement in computer/telephone functionality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under §101 | The claimed downloadable application and GUI on a cellphone are inventive and make the claims patent-eligible | Claims are directed to the abstract idea of providing out-of-region access to regional broadcasts and use only conventional components | Claims are directed to an abstract idea (out-of-region broadcasting) and are not patent-eligible |
| Whether claim limitations supply an "inventive concept" under Alice step two | The download-able app and GUI are novel and provide the inventive concept | The app, GUI, storage, transmit/receive functions are generic, routine, and conventional | No inventive concept: limitations are generic computer/cellphone functions and do not transform the abstract idea |
| Whether limiting the idea to cellphones renders it non-abstract | Limiting to cellular phones is a meaningful technological limitation | Field-of-use limitation to an existing technology does not avoid abstraction | Restricting the abstract idea to cellphones does not make it patentable |
| Whether dependent claim features (e.g., FM, song info, buffering) change eligibility | Dependent limitations narrow and supply technical detail | Dependent limitations are routine, conventional choices within existing technology | Dependent claims add only conventional features and do not cure ineligibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) (articulates two-step test for abstract ideas and inventive concept)
- Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (applies Mayo and rejects generic computer implementation as sufficient)
- Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims directed to a self-referential table improvement held eligible)
- Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims distributing copyrighted content for ad viewing are abstract)
- DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims addressing a problem particular to the Internet and specifying how to manipulate web interactions held eligible)
- In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims using generic phone/server components to classify/store images are abstract)
- Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims of extracting and storing data with generic scanning/processing tech are abstract)
- Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (simply adding computer aid without specifying how is insufficient)
- Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs., Inc., 811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer-implemented anonymous loan-shopping claims held abstract)
- Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (generic interactive interface limitation does not supply inventive concept)