Gammino v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company, 1:12-cv-00666

Plaintiff John R. Gammino sued multiple telecom defendants alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,359,643 (the '643 patent), which claims a method for placing a telephone call by receiving dialing digits, receiving a payment-method signal after the number, providing payment, and transmitting DTMF signals to a central office.
Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), arguing all claims are patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101; the parties agreed claim 1 is representative and formal claim construction was unnecessary for the § 101 ruling.
The court treated the § 101 question as a legal issue suitable for disposition on a 12(c) motion and adopted Gammino’s proposed constructions for disputed terms for purposes of the motion.
The parties debated whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Mayo/Alice step 1) and, if so, whether they contain an "inventive concept" beyond conventional telephony (Mayo/Alice step 2).
The court found claim 1 directed to the abstract idea of allowing a buyer to select a method of payment for a service implemented in a telephony environment and concluded the claim adds only conventional telephony steps.
The court granted Defendants’ Motion: all claims of the '643 patent are ineligible under § 101 and the complaint fails as a matter of law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the '643 patent claims patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Mayo/Alice framework)	Gammino: claims tied to telephone-specific components and ordered steps; solves device-specific confusion and thus not an abstract idea; ordered combination and signals are inventive	Defendants: claims are directed to the abstract idea of selecting a payment method for a service and merely apply conventional telephony technology; no inventive concept	Court: claim 1 is an abstract idea (selecting payment method); the limitations are routine/conventional telephony and do not supply an inventive concept; claims are § 101-ineligible

Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (Sup. Ct.) (scope of patentable subject matter and exceptions)
Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (Sup. Ct.) (two-step test for laws of nature and abstract ideas)
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (Sup. Ct.) (applying Mayo two-step; need inventive concept beyond abstract idea)
Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (Sup. Ct.) (business-method claims and machine-or-transformation guidance)
In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir.) (machine-or-transformation as an investigative tool)
Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir.) (data-collection claims as abstract and application of Mayo/Alice)
buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir.) (business practice claims as abstract idea)
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decision, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir.) (claims for validating transactions are abstract)
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir.) (conventional steps cannot supply inventive concept)
DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir.) (distinguishing claims that fix internet-centric technological problems)
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir.) (preemption analysis moot where Mayo/Alice shows ineligibility)
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (Sup. Ct.) (claims improving a technological process may be patent-eligible)