Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA)
792 F.3d 1363
| Fed. Cir. | 2015Background
- Intellectual Ventures sued Capital One asserting infringement of three patents: the ’137 (budgeting/financial-account administration), the ’382 (customized web content based on user data/navigation), and the ’587 (organizing scanned hard-copy photos using a machine-readable instruction form).
- After the district court construed “machine readable instruction form” in the ’587 patent to require a hard-copy form, Intellectual Ventures stipulated to non-infringement of the ’587 asserted claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment that the asserted claims of the ’137 and ’382 patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (patent-ineligible abstract ideas). It also found the asserted ’382 claims indefinite under § 112(b) based on its construction of “interactive interface.”
- Intellectual Ventures appealed the § 101 invalidity rulings for the ’137 and ’382 patents and the claim construction ruling for the ’587 patent; this Court has de novo review of § 101 and claim construction issues.
- The appellate court affirmed: the ’137 and ’382 asserted claims are directed to abstract ideas and lack an inventive concept, and the district court correctly construed the ’587 machine-readable instruction form to require a hard-copy form.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether asserted claims of the ’137 patent are patent-eligible under § 101 | ’137 claims apply budgeting concepts using computer/databases and communications; thus are patentable | Claims merely recite abstract budgeting implemented with generic computer components | Held invalid: claims directed to abstract idea (budgeting) and lack inventive concept (only generic computer elements) |
| Whether asserted claims of the ’382 patent are patent-eligible and whether “interactive interface” is indefinite | Claims dynamically tailor web content in real time using an interactive interface and thus are inventive and patent-eligible | Claims are broad abstractions (tailoring by user info/time/navigation) implemented with generic web/server components; not an Internet-specific inventive solution | Held invalid under § 101: claims directed to long-practiced, abstract tailoring and lack an inventive concept; court did not reach indefiniteness because § 101 disposes the claims |
| Proper construction of “associated machine readable instruction form” in the ’587 patent | Machine-readable instruction form can be electronic; need not be hard-copy | Limitation requires a hard-copy form that physically separates grouped prints and is scanned with them | Held: term requires a hard-copy machine-readable instruction form—supported by claim language, specification, and prosecution history |
Key Cases Cited
- Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (U.S. 2014) (two-step framework for § 101; abstract ideas plus requirement of inventive concept)
- Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (U.S. 2010) (claims directed to fundamental commercial practice held abstract)
- DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (distinguishable Fed. Cir. decision recognizing an Internet-specific inventive solution)
- Cybersource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (computer-implemented credit-card verification method held an abstract idea)
- Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (computing financial calculations more efficiently via computer does not make them patent-eligible)
- Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Internet/computer implementation of abstract advertising-exchange concept held patent-ineligible)