Bsg Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc.
899 F.3d 1281
| Fed. Cir. | 2018Background
- BSG Tech sued BuySeasons for infringement of three related patents (Nos. 6,035,294; 6,243,699; 6,195,652) claiming a "self-evolving generic index" that guides users to add parameters/values to a wide-area database by showing historical usage ("summary comparison usage information").
- Asserted claims cover methods/systems that present previously used parameters/values and relative historical usage data to users when posting or searching items; dependent claims add limits (e.g., adding parameters/values, classification systems, ability to add parameters without changing DB structure).
- BuySeasons moved to dismiss (converted to summary judgment), arguing the asserted claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101; the district court agreed the claims were directed to an abstract idea and lacked an inventive concept.
- On appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed de novo whether claims are patent-eligible under Alice’s two-step framework and accepted BSG Tech’s proposed claim constructions for the § 101 analysis.
- The court held the claims are directed to the abstract idea of having users consider historical usage information when inputting data, and that recited database structures or presenting usage summaries do not supply a qualifying "inventive concept." Judgment of ineligibility affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the asserted claims directed to patent‑ineligible subject matter under § 101 (Alice step 1)? | Claims improve database indexing/organization by guiding users with historical usage info, thus improving database functionality and data quality. | Claims are directed to the abstract idea of considering historical usage information when inputting data (a method of organizing human activity) implemented on conventional databases. | Directed to an abstract idea; not rooted in specific computer-technology improvement. |
| Do the claims reciting a specific database structure avoid abstraction? | The claims require a particular database structure (parametrized classifications/values; adding parameters without structural modification), so they are not merely generic computer implementation. | Reciting a conventional database environment (or slightly more detail) does not save claims from abstraction; such recitation is a generic environment per precedent. | Database-structure recitations are conventional/generic and do not avoid abstraction. |
| Do claim limitations supply an "inventive concept" (Alice step 2)? | Presenting summary comparison/relative usage information and allowing parameter additions are unconventional improvements that supply an inventive concept. | The guiding-with-historical-usage limitation merely restates the abstract idea; other elements are conventional/routine, so no inventive concept. | No inventive concept: the only distinctive feature is the abstract idea itself; other elements are well‑understood, routine, conventional. |
| Does the lack of complete preemption make the claims § 101‑eligible? | Narrowing to a specific DB structure avoids preemption and supports eligibility. | Absence of complete preemption does not render an otherwise abstract claim eligible if the added elements are conventional. | Narrowing to conventional structures does not supply an inventive concept; eligibility not saved by limited preemption. |
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)
- Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (Sup. Ct. 2012) (inventive concept requirement under § 101)
- Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims can be patent-eligible where they improve computer functionality itself)
- Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (whether elements are conventional can present a factual dispute precluding summary judgment)
- DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims rooted in computer technology overcoming a computer-specific problem may be non-abstract)
- TLI Commc'ns LLC v. AV Auto. Ltd., 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims directed to organizing human activity are abstract despite reciting generic components)
- Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (use of a scanner did not avoid abstraction when claim directed to collecting data)