Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp.
850 F.3d 1332
Fed. Cir.2017Background
- IV appeals district court ruling invalidating the ’081 and ’002 patents under §101 and, via collateral estoppel, barring IV from pursuing the ’084 patent; the JPMC court’s partial summary judgment informed the collateral estoppel finding; the Maryland district court certified the judgment under Rule 54(b) to allow parallel appeal with antitrust claims; IV challenges Rule 54(b) certification, collateral estoppel, and §101 determinations; the panel reviews in light of Fourth Circuit collateral estoppel standards and Alice/Mayo framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 54(b) certification proper? | IV says certification lacked explicit findings and interrelated claims | Capital One says no abuse; certification supported by no-just-reason-for-delay findings | No abuse; district court properly certified under Rule 54(b) |
| Collateral estoppel finality satisfied? | IV argues JPMC order not final, so estoppel invalid | District court’s partial summary judgment meets finality under Fourth Circuit | Collateral estoppel attaches from JPMC partial summary judgment under Fourth Circuit finality test |
| ’081 patent eligible under §101 (abstract idea step) | Claims improve XML management and are non-abstract | Claims directed to abstract data-collection/manipulation | Ineligible under §101; claims directed to abstract idea with no inventive concept |
| ’002 patent eligible under §101 | N/A | District court found ineligible; consistent with companion appeal | Ineligible under §101 (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427 (1956) (Rule 54(b) finality standard; requires no just reason for delay)
- Braswell Shipyards, Inc. v. Beazer E., Inc., 2 F.3d 1331 (4th Cir. 1993) (assesses relatedness of claims in Rule 54(b) context)
- Swentek v. USAIR, Inc., 830 F.2d 552 (4th Cir. 1987) (finality for collateral estoppel can be flexible; not always require final judgment)
- Vardon Golf Co. v. Karsten Manufacturing Corp., 294 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (partial summary judgment not always disqualifying for collateral estoppel (Seventh Circuit standard used))
- Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (abstract idea analysis; data extraction/organization as abstract)
- Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (two-step §101 framework; abstract idea and inventive concept)
- Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) (two-step inquiry for abstract ideas; inventive concept required)
- Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (abstract vs. inventive concepts; focus on abstract idea's focus)