BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT & T Mobility LLC
107 F. Supp. 3d 639
N.D. Tex.2015Background
- BASCOM sues AT&T Mobility LLC and AT&T Corp. for infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,987,606, which claims a customizable Internet content filtering system.
- The court treats the case as a 12(b)(6) subject-matter eligibility challenge under §101.
- The patent purports to enhance filtering by associating per-user accounts with customizable filtering schemes and elements on an ISP server.
- The court analyzes claims 1 and 22 as representative of the asserted invention.
- The court applies Mayo/Alice framework to determine if the claims are directed to an abstract idea and lack an inventive concept, and grants AT&T’s motion to dismiss with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea. | BASCOM argues DDR Holdings shows computer-technology rooted solutions are patentable. | AT&T contends the claims simply recite abstract idea of filtering content. | Yes, directed to an abstract idea. |
| Whether the claims contain an inventive concept transforming the abstract idea. | BASCOM argues the ordered combination yields an inventive concept. | AT&T argues elements are generic and routine. | No inventive concept; not patent-eligible. |
| Whether the analysis should apply the two-step Mayo/Alice framework to §101 invalidity. | BASCOM relies on computer-technology context supporting eligibility. | AT&T emphasizes abstract-idea risk and need for inventive concept. | Two-step framework applied; claims fail Step One and Two. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (U.S. 1972) (abstract idea precludes patentability; preemption concern)
- Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (U.S. 1978) (mere abstract principle with postsolution activity not patentable)
- Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (U.S. 1981) (claims as a whole may be eligible when an abstract idea is applied to a practical process)
- Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (U.S. 2010) (no per se business-method patent; must assess claim as a whole)
- Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (S. Ct. 2014) (two-step framework; abstract idea plus inventive concept required)
- Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims directed to abstract idea on the Internet; added steps not transformative)
- DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims rooted in computer technology to solve Internet-specific problem; not merely abstract idea)
- Accenture Global Services, GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (claims reciting software components implementing an abstract concept; not enough for §101)
- Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (data extraction/recognition/storage is abstract; computer implementation must add an inventive concept)