Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.
758 F.3d 1344
| Fed. Cir. | 2014Background
- Digi-tech owns the '415 patent on an improved device profile describing color and spatial properties of imaging devices.
- The patent addresses device-independent image processing using device profiles for color and spatial transformations.
- The district court held all asserted claims under 101 ineligible as abstract data or lack of physical embodiment.
- Digitech appealed alleging device profile claims are tangible and method claims are tied to a machine.
- The court analyzed device profile claims vs. the Nuijten precedent and applied Mayo/Alice framework to the method claims.
- The court affirmed the district court’s §101 invalidity ruling on both device profile and method claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are device profile claims eligible subject matter under §101? | Digitech argues device profile is a tangible component. | Defendant maintains the profile is data without physical form. | No; device profile claims are not tangible and thus ineligible. |
| Are method claims eligible under §101 or abstract ideas? | Digitech asserts claims are tied to a digital image system. | Defendant argues claims recite abstract data manipulation. | No; method claims abstract and not tied to a machine, thus ineligible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nuijten v. Bass & Tech. Corp., 500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory, non-physical data not patent eligible)
- Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (U.S. 2014) (abstract ideas require additional inventive concept)
- Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (U.S. 1972) (abstract mathematical algorithms not patent eligible)
- Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (U.S. 1978) (magnitude of abstract idea cannot render it patent eligible)
- Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (U.S. 1980) (eligible subject matter includes manufactured compositions)