50 F.4th 1371
Fed. Cir.2022Background
- IBM sued Zillow alleging infringement of two patents: U.S. Patent No. 9,158,789 (the ‘789 patent) and U.S. Patent No. 7,187,389 (the ‘389 patent), both relating to graphical display/GUI techniques for maps and layered visual data.
- Representative ‘789 claim: draw a user-determined shape on a map to select/deselect elements and synchronize selections with a co-displayed list.
- Representative ‘389 claim: select objects into visually distinguishable layers using non-spatial attributes (color, opacity, etc.), determine layer order, and support re-layering/rematching (dependent claims add dynamic relayering/rematching logic).
- District court granted Zillow’s Rule 12(c) motion holding both patents ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to abstract ideas and lacking an inventive concept; IBM appealed.
- The Federal Circuit majority affirmed: both patents are directed to abstract ideas (organizing/displaying information; synchronizing map and list) and add only generic computer implementation—no inventive concept. Judge Stoll dissented in part, arguing claims 9 and 13 of the ‘389 patent survive at Rule 12 because plausible factual allegations and an expert declaration support a technical GUI improvement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alice step 1 — ‘789: Is the claim directed to an abstract idea? | ‘789 improves GUIs for geospatial filtering and data analysis; a specific computer improvement. | It merely limits and coordinates displayed info (map+list); equivalent to manual overlay/selection—abstract. | Held abstract; not an improvement in computer technology. |
| Alice step 2 — ‘789: Do claim elements supply an inventive concept? | Synchronizing displays and "user‑determined shape" create inventive concept; Aatrix requires accepting factual allegations. | Limitations are functional, generic, and known in prior art; no specific technical implementation. | No inventive concept; affirm invalidity. |
| Alice step 1 — ‘389: Is organizing/displaying layered visual data patent‑eligible? | Uses nonspatial attributes, emphasized layers, relayering/rematching to improve GUI and reduce clutter. | Layering and visual distinction predate computers (cartography); claims are abstract and device‑agnostic. | Held abstract; claims describe organizing/displaying information without computer‑specific improvement. |
| Alice step 2 / Procedural — ‘389 dependent claims 9 & 13 / Aatrix effect at Rule 12 | Factual allegations and expert declaration plausibly show a technical GUI improvement (dynamic relayering/rematching) that overcomes Alice. | Complaint lacks plausible, specific inventive details; limitations are routine on generic computers. | Majority: no inventive concept; affirmed invalidity. Dissent (Stoll): would reverse as factual allegations plausibly show eligibility for claims 9 & 13. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) (establishes two‑step framework for § 101 abstract‑idea analysis)
- Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012) (Supreme Court precedent on patentable subject matter; foundational to Alice)
- Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013) (limits patent eligibility for natural phenomena and abstract concepts)
- Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir.) (Rule 12: accept plausible factual allegations about inventiveness)
- Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir.) (Rule 12(c) standard and when dismissal on § 101 is appropriate)
- Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir.) (distinguishes claims directed to specific computer improvements from abstract ideas)
- Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir.) (GUI improvements can be patent‑eligible if they solve a computer‑specific problem)
- BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir.) (inventive concept requires more than conventional computer implementation)