CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.
654 F.3d 1366
| Fed. Cir. | 2011Background
- CyberSource owns the '154 patent, titled a method/system for detecting fraud in online credit card transactions.
- The patent targets online purchases where traditional verification (address/ID) is insufficient.
- Claim 3 covers obtaining data about other transactions via an Internet address, mapping credit card numbers, and using the map to validate the transaction.
- Claim 2 (Beauregard) recites a computer-readable medium with instructions to perform the same fraud-detection method.
- The district court granted summary judgment that claims 2 and 3 were invalid under 35 U.S.C. §101 as failing to recite patent-eligible subject matter; CyberSource appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claim 3 is patent-eligible under §101. | CyberSource argues claim 3 is patent-eligible. | Retail Decisions argues claim 3 is an unpatentable mental process. | Claim 3 is not patent-eligible; mental process. |
| Whether claim 2 is patent-eligible as Beauregard claim. | CyberSource argues claim 2 is patent-eligible by linking to a machine. | Retail Decisions argues claim 2 remains an unpatentable mental process despite a computer-readable medium. | Claim 2 is not patent-eligible; Beauregard claim cannot save under §101. |
| Whether machine-or-transformation is the sole test for §101. | CyberSource relies on the machine-or-transformation framework. | Retail Decisions contends it remains a guiding test, not the exclusive standard. | Machine-or-transformation is not exclusive; analysis still invalidates both claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bilski v. Doll, en banc, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (machine-or-transformation not exclusive test; court may develop other criteria)
- Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (Supreme Court 1972) (mental processes are not patentable; basic tools of science)
- Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (Supreme Court 1978) (abstract ideas unpatentable despite practical application)
- In re Beauregard, 53 F.3d 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ( Beauregard claim format (computer-readable medium) evaluated under §101)
- In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902 (CCPA 1982) (claims directed to method vs. apparatus; abstract ideas not saved by form)
- Grams v. Happens Too, 888 F.2d 836 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (data-gathering steps alone do not render a nonstatutory claim statutory)