Internet Patents Corp. v. General Automobile Insurance Services, Inc.
29 F. Supp. 3d 1264
N.D. Cal.2013Background
- Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ suit on 35 U.S.C. §101 patent-eligibility grounds.
- Court considered parties’ papers and record; no oral argument; hearing vacated.
- '505 Patent’ claims relate to dynamic web-page navigation in online multi-page forms.
- Court finds the claims invalid under §101 due to abstract idea with no inventive concept.
- Court concludes the patent is invalid and grants motion to dismiss with prejudice; related cases to be dismissed for invalidity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the '505 patent is invalid under §101. | Plaintiff argues the patent discloses a technical solution. | Defendants contend the patent claims an abstract idea lacking an inventive concept. | Patent invalid under §101. |
| Whether the machine-or-transformation test supports eligibility. | Plaintiff contends computer implementation demonstrates eligibility. | Computer implementation of abstract idea does not suffice. | Test does not render the claims eligible. |
| Whether the §101 analysis is premature before claim construction. | Argues for premature assessment of eligibility. | Court may assess eligibility without claim construction at this stage. | Prematurity resolved in favor of evaluating eligibility at motion to dismiss. |
| Whether the pleading state of the patent-infringement claim survives the 12(b)(6) standard. | Plaintiff asserts sufficient notice of infringement. | Generic assertion of infringement is insufficient. | Claims insufficient; dismissal with prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (U.S. 2012) (abstract laws and natural phenomena not patentable; need inventive concept)
- Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (U.S. 2010) (machine-or-transformation test as guidance for eligibility)
- CLS Bank Int'l v. Alice Corp., 685 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (abstractness must be manifest to override patent-eligibility)
- CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (computer-implemented abstract ideas alone are insufficient)
- Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (adding computer limitations to abstract concept not enough)
- Fort Properties, Inc. v. American Master Lease LLC, 671 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (transformation not shown to render invention patent-eligible)
- Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55 (U.S. 1998) (original concept of patent eligibility and reduction to practice)