Interval Licensing LLC v. Aol, Inc.
896 F.3d 1335
Fed. Cir.2018Background
- Interval Licensing sued AOL and others asserting claims 15–18 of U.S. Patent No. 6,034,652 (the ’652 patent) related to an "attention manager" that displays content in unused portions of a display.
- The Federal Circuit previously construed "attention manager" as a system that displays images either when the user is not engaged or in an area not used by the user’s primary activity and invalidated other claims of related patents as indefinite. 766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
- Representative claim 18 recites a computer-readable medium encoding generic instruction sets for acquiring, scheduling, displaying, updating, and auditing content for an attention manager.
- The Western District of Washington held claims 15–18 ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Alice framework), concluding they were directed to the abstract idea of presenting information without interfering with a primary activity and contained only conventional computer functions. 193 F. Supp. 3d 1184.
- On appeal the Federal Circuit affirmed: the claims are directed to an abstract idea (displaying two non-overlapping information sets) and lack an inventive concept because the claimed instructions and ‘‘attention manager’’ are result-oriented and recite only conventional, generic computer functions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims 15–18 are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea under Alice Step 1 | Interval: the attention manager provides a technological improvement to displays by combining secondary content with primary display interaction | Defendants: claims are result-oriented—merely presenting additional information without disrupting primary activity is an abstract idea | Held: Directed to an abstract idea—presenting two sets of information non-overlapping is an abstract concept |
| Whether the claimed instruction limitations supply an "inventive concept" under Alice Step 2 | Interval: the claimed acquisition, scheduling, display, update, and installation instructions are technical and thus inventive | Defendants: those instructions are generic, routine computer functions; specification admits they are conventional | Held: No inventive concept—limitations are conventional, generic, and do not describe how to achieve non-overlap |
| Whether claim construction of "attention manager" narrows the claim to a technical solution | Interval: prior construction and specification show a particular system/technique for leveraging unused display capacity | Defendants: construction is result-focused and does not limit how the result is achieved | Held: Construction yields a result-oriented term (system producing non-overlap) that encompasses all implementations and thus is not limiting |
| Whether asserted claims improve computer technology as in Enfish/DDR/Amdocs | Interval: claims improve display technology by integrating secondary content without interference | Defendants: no specific technical means or distributed architecture claimed; merely uses generic networked computers | Held: Unlike Enfish/DDR, claims do not recite a particular technical solution; Amdocs inapposite; claims fail §101 |
Key Cases Cited
- Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (establishes two-step framework for patent-eligibility analysis)
- Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., 566 U.S. 66 (2012) (inventive concept requirement and caution against patenting natural laws/abstract ideas)
- Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (software claims can be patent-eligible when they improve computer functionality)
- DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims rooted in computer technology that solve Internet-centric problems may be eligible)
- Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims lacking how result is achieved are abstract)
- Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims directed to abstract advertising methods invalid)
- Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (prior Federal Circuit claim construction and holdings about indefiniteness)
- Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (factual disputes about whether elements are routine may preclude §101 resolution at pleadings)
- Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 193 F. Supp. 3d 1184 (W.D. Wash. 2016) (district court decision holding claims 15–18 §101-ineligible)