Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.
838 F.3d 1307
| Fed. Cir. | 2016

Background

  • Intellectual Ventures I LLC sued Symantec and Trend Micro for infringement of three patents: the '050 (distributed content identification), the '142 (post-office rule-based e-mail routing), and the '610 (virus screening in a telephone network).
  • Proceedings split: Symantec trial resulted in a jury finding no invalidity under §§102/103 and infringement findings for some claims; Trend Micro case resolved on summary judgment. Post-trial and summary-judgment §101 challenges were adjudicated by the district court.
  • The district court held the asserted claims of the '050 and '142 patents ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 and held claim 7 of the '610 patent eligible; final judgments followed for the defendants on the '050 and '142 claims and in favor of IV on the '610 claim against Symantec.
  • The Federal Circuit reviewed de novo the §101 determinations (and Rule 52(c) judgment legal conclusions de novo; factual findings for clear error).
  • Applying the Mayo/Alice two-step framework, the panel examined whether the claims were directed to an abstract idea (step one) and, if so, whether they recited an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (step two).

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether asserted claims of the '050 patent are §101-eligible '050 claims improve email filtering and address protection-gap/volume problems; jury found claims novel over asserted prior art Claims merely recite abstract filtering of files/emails using generic computers; no inventive concept Not eligible — claims directed to abstract idea (mail-filtering analogue) and only use generic computer functions; affirmed ineligibility
Whether asserted claims of the '142 patent are §101-eligible '142 claims describe a specific post-office system for automated rule-based email routing and gating Claims recite conventional mailroom/post-office practices implemented with generic computers; specification confirms conventional implementation Not eligible — claims directed to conventional business practice (mailroom/post office) implemented on generic computers; affirmed ineligibility
Whether asserted claim 7 of the '610 patent is §101-eligible Claim 7 deploys virus screening within the telephone network to solve protection-gap and centralize screening—an improvement to network security Claim merely applies conventional virus-scanning software on generic network elements; invoking telephone network is only a generic environment Not eligible — panel majority: claim directed to abstract virus-screening and adds only conventional network/computer components; reversed eligibility (i.e., held ineligible)
Effect of jury verdicts on §101 analysis IV: jury verdict that prior art did not anticipate/obvious the claims implies claims are inventive and thus §101-eligible Defendants: novelty/nonobviousness under §§102/103 is distinct from §101 eligibility; novelty does not supply inventive concept under Alice/Mayo Jury §102/103 findings do not resolve §101; novelty/obviousness are irrelevant to the threshold §101 inventive-concept inquiry

Key Cases Cited

  • Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., 566 U.S. 66 (Mayo/Alice two-step framework for patent-eligibility)
  • Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (abstract-idea test and requiring an inventive concept beyond generic computer implementation)
  • Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (abstract ideas and limits on patentable subject matter)
  • Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (claims must be considered as a whole; novelty not determinative for §101)
  • DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir.) (patent-eligibility where claims improve computer/Internet functionality)
  • BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir.) (inventive concept found in non-conventional arrangement of filtering elements)
  • Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir.) (claims directed to specific improvement in computer functionality can be eligible)
  • Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir.) (collecting/recognizing/storing data is an abstract idea)
  • In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir.) (generic environment + conventional components = abstract idea)
  • Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir.) (internet/communication-medium limitations do not render abstract ideas patent-eligible)
  • Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir.) (use of the Internet alone insufficient for eligibility)
  • buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir.) (generic computer components insufficient to add inventive concept)
  • Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir.) (complex specification does not rescue claims that recite only abstract ideas)
  • Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir.) (absence of complete preemption does not establish eligibility)
Read the full case