Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Sprint Nextel Corporation
677 F. App'x 679
Fed. Cir.2017Background
- Evolutionary Intelligence (EI) owns U.S. Patents 7,010,536 and 7,702,682 directed to systems/methods that modify computer-processed data based on external information (e.g., location, time).
- EI sued Sprint for patent infringement; Sprint moved to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings arguing claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
- The district court held all asserted claims invalid as directed to the abstract idea of "searching and processing containerized data," likening them to traditional information-organizing activities (libraries, ledgers, folders).
- EI appealed, arguing (1) the claims improve computer functionality (not an abstract idea) and (2) even if abstract, the claims recite an inventive concept through specific structures and arrangements.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed, concluding the claims are directed to an abstract idea (tailoring/selecting/sorting content by user/context) and lack an inventive concept because they merely recite conventional components at a high level.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea | EI: Claims improve computer functioning, not an abstract idea | Sprint: Claims are directed to tailoring/selecting/processing information (an abstract idea) | Held: Directed to an abstract idea (tailoring/selecting/sorting content by user/context) |
| Whether the claims supply an inventive concept under Alice step two | EI: Claims recite specific arrangement of structures (containers, registers, gateways) that provide inventive concept | Sprint: Recited elements are conventional and routine; using them on a computer is insufficient | Held: No inventive concept; elements are conventional/generic and claimed at too high a level |
Key Cases Cited
- Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (tailoring content based on user information is an abstract idea)
- Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (collecting/tailoring information can be abstract)
- Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (collecting information is within realm of abstract ideas)
- Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality can be patent eligible)
- BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims patent eligible where they recite a specific, discrete implementation rather than generic computer components)