Easyweb Innovations, LLC v. Twitter, Inc.
689 F. App'x 969
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- EasyWeb sued Twitter asserting five patents (including U.S. Patent No. 7,685,247) for a message publishing system that accepts messages (fax, phone, email), authenticates senders, converts formats, and publishes messages to the Internet.
- Representative claim (claim 1 of the ’247 patent) recites a central processor, sender accounts, storage, and software that: identifies an authorized sender based on message-associated information, converts message format, and publishes the converted message only if the sender is authorized.
- Twitter moved for summary judgment of patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and, alternatively, noninfringement; the district court granted the motion as to § 101 and alternatively noninfringement.
- The Federal Circuit reviews § 101 de novo and applied the two-step Alice/Mayo framework to determine patent eligibility.
- The court found the claims directed to the abstract idea of receiving, authenticating, and publishing data and held the claim elements were generic computer implementations that did not supply an inventive concept to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the asserted claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under § 101 | EasyWeb argued the claimed system is a concrete, useful invention (a message publishing system) and the ordered combination provides an inventive solution to Internet publishing challenges | Twitter argued the claims recite abstract operations (receiving, authenticating, converting, publishing data) implemented with generic computer components and thus are ineligible | Claims are directed to an abstract idea (receiving, authenticating, publishing data) and are patent-ineligible |
| Whether the claims contain an "inventive concept" under Alice step two | EasyWeb asserted the ordered combination of steps yields an inventive concept and improves message-publishing technology | Twitter asserted the claim elements are conventional computer functions and their ordering is routine and well-known | No inventive concept: elements are generic computer implementation and ordinary ordering, insufficient to transform the abstract idea |
| Whether to reach infringement issues | EasyWeb sought to preserve infringement arguments if claims were held eligible | Twitter had argued noninfringement alternatively | Court found all claims ineligible and did not need to resolve infringement on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (Sup. Ct.) (two-step framework for § 101 eligibility)
- Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (Sup. Ct.) (inventive concept analysis)
- Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir.) (claims for collecting, analyzing, and displaying information are abstract)
- In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir.) (data collection and transmission claims found abstract)
- McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir.) (claims held patent-eligible where they improved specific computer animation technology)
- FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir.) (claims involving data monitoring and alerting analyzed under Alice)