Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.
842 F.3d 1229
| Fed. Cir. | 2016Background
- Ameranth owns three related patents (’850, ’325, ’733) claiming computer systems/software for generating a second menu from a first menu and transmitting it (preferred embodiment: restaurant ordering on handheld devices).
- Each patent claim recites conventional hardware elements (CPU, data storage, OS, GUI) and menu structures (categories, modifiers, sub-modifiers); the ’733 adds manual modification and linking/synchronization features.
- Petitioners (Apple and Agilysys) filed Covered Business Method (CBM) review petitions; the PTAB instituted review, construed key terms under the broadest reasonable construction, and found many claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
- The PTAB also concluded the patents are CBM patents (financial product/service prong met; not technological inventions under 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b)). Ameranth appealed claim constructions, CBM status, and § 101 rulings; petitioners cross‑appealed the PTAB’s findings that some dependent claims were patentable.
- The Federal Circuit reviewed claim construction de novo (and subsidiary facts for substantial evidence), reviewed the Board’s technological‑invention determination for arbitrariness, and reviewed § 101 issues de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Ameranth's Argument | Petitioners'/USPTO's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper construction of “menu” | Should be hierarchical computer data representing linked levels for GUI display | Board: ordinary meaning — "a list of options available to a user displayable on a computer" | Affirmed Board; excluding hierarchical language avoids redundancy with express claim recitations |
| Whether preamble "synchronous communications system" is limiting | Preamble requires central back‑office server syncing multiple clients | Board: preamble not limiting; no specification support requiring central server | Affirmed Board; preamble not limiting |
| Whether patents are CBM patents (technological‑invention exception) | Patents recite technological features and novel software; thus fall outside CBM program | Petitioners/PTAB: claims use conventional hardware/software and do not solve technical problem | Affirmed PTAB; patents are CBM patents — do not meet § 42.301(b) (not technological inventions) |
| Section 101 patent‑eligibility of independent claims | Claims recite concrete computer systems; are not directed to abstract ideas | Petitioners/PTAB: claims directed to abstract idea (menu generation/transmission); elements are conventional and add nothing inventive | Affirmed PTAB: independent claims invalid under § 101 |
| Patentability of dependent claims (linking orders to customers) | Linking limitation is novel and not shown to be conventional | Petitioners: linking is a known/manual task simply implemented on computers | Reversed PTAB’s allowance; linking claims are insignificant post‑solution activity and patent ineligible |
| Patentability of dependent claims (handwriting/voice capture and recognition) | These limit functionality and are patentable | Petitioners: handwriting/voice capture were known; recited without inventive implementation | Reversed PTAB’s allowance; these are conventional technologies and do not supply inventive concept |
Key Cases Cited
- Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (Sup. Ct. 2014) (two‑step test for abstract ideas and inventive concept under § 101)
- Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (Sup. Ct. 2012) (insignificant post‑solution activity cannot make abstract idea patentable)
- Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims directed to a specific improvement in computer technology can be patent‑eligible)
- McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims to a specific claimed improvement in automated animation found patent‑eligible)
- Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (using existing recognition technologies does not supply inventive concept)
- Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., 793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (scope of CBM/technological invention exception and reviewability)
- Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (Sup. Ct. 2016) (Patent Office use of broadest reasonable construction upheld in related contexts)
- Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (doctrine against rendering claim language redundant in construction)
- Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (Sup. Ct. 2015) (deference framework for subsidiary factual findings in claim construction)