Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC
906 F.3d 999
| Fed. Cir. | 2018Background
- Data Engine Technologies (DET) owns several patents concerning spreadsheet user interfaces: the ‘‘Tab Patents’’ (U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,590,259; 5,784,545; 6,282,551) that claim a notebook‑tabbed interface for navigating multi‑page/3‑D spreadsheets, and the ’146 patent claiming methods for tracking spreadsheet scenario changes.
- DET sued Google for infringement of asserted claims from the Tab Patents and the ’146 patent; Google moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) arguing the claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
- The district court held the Tab Patents’ representative claim ineligible as directed to the abstract idea of using notebook‑type tabs to organize spreadsheets, and held the ’146 patent claims ineligible as directed to collecting/recognizing/storing changed spreadsheet data.
- On appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed eligibility under the Alice two‑step framework and considered the patents’ specifications and contemporaneous prosecution materials showing industry acclaim for the notebook‑tab interface (e.g., Quattro Pro coverage).
- The Federal Circuit concluded (1) with the exception of claim 1 of the ’551 patent, the asserted claims of the Tab Patents are patent‑eligible because they claim a specific, computer‑implemented improvement in spreadsheet navigation using notebook tabs; and (2) the asserted claims of the ’146 patent are ineligible as they are directed to the abstract idea of tracking changes and lack an inventive concept.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DET) | Defendant's Argument (Google) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether asserted Tab Patents claims are directed to an abstract idea under Alice step 1 | The notebook‑tabbed interface is a specific computer improvement to spreadsheet navigation and thus not abstract | Tabs are a generic way to label/organize information; claims merely implement a real‑world idea on a computer | Majority: Except for claim 1 of the ’551 patent, Tab Patents’ asserted claims are not directed to an abstract idea (eligible at Alice step 1) |
| Whether claim 1 of the ’551 patent is patent‑eligible | The claim is part of the same family and should be treated as an improvement | Claim 1 is broader/generic and lacks the specific notebook‑tab implementation | Held: Claim 1 of the ’551 patent is directed to an abstract idea (identifying/storing pages) and fails Alice step 2 (no inventive concept) |
| Whether asserted claims of the ’146 patent are directed to an abstract idea under Alice step 1 | The tracking methods improve spreadsheet scenario management | The claims are abstract: collecting/comparing/storing changed spreadsheet data is a basic conceptual process | Held: Asserted ’146 claims are directed to the abstract idea of collecting/recognizing/storing changes and lack an inventive concept (ineligible) |
| Whether additional claim elements supply an inventive concept under Alice step 2 | The claims include spreadsheet‑specific features and implementation details that render them inventive | Additional elements are generic computer implementation and conventional activity | Held: For the Tab Patents (except ’551 claim 1) Alice step 2 not reached; for ’551 claim 1 and ’146 claims additional elements are conventional and do not supply an inventive concept |
Key Cases Cited
- Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (establishes two‑step test for § 101 eligibility)
- Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (claims directed to specific improved user interface are patent‑eligible)
- Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims that improve computer functionality can be not abstract)
- Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims automating collection, recognition, and storage of information held abstract)
- Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concept of delivering media content and conventional UI elements deemed abstract)
- Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claims directed to collecting, displaying, manipulating data are abstract)
- Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (indexing/searching data held abstract absent specific computer improvement)
- Merck & Co. v. Hi‑Tech Pharmacal Co., 482 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (standard for reviewing Rule 12(c) judgment on the pleadings in patent cases)
- Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (noting § 101 can be resolved on pleadings when no factual disputes prevent legal resolution)
- Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (factual findings may be necessary at Alice step 2 when inventive concept is contested)
- Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 F. App’x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (GUI paired with prescribed functionality addressing a specific prior‑art problem deemed not abstract)