Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL Inc.
193 F. Supp. 3d 1184
W.D. Wash.2016Background
- Interval Licensing sued multiple defendants (AOL, Apple, Google, Yahoo) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,034,652 (the ’652 patent) asserting claims directed to an “attention manager” system.
- Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), arguing the asserted claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 per Alice because they claim an abstract idea with no inventive concept.
- Interval responded that the claims are not abstract and that they recite an inventive concept improving content delivery in networked, windowed multitasking environments.
- The Court applied the two-step Alice/Mayo framework: (1) whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea; (2) whether the claims add an inventive concept sufficient to transform the idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
- The Court concluded the claims are directed to the abstract idea of providing information to a person without interfering with the person’s primary activity (e.g., news tickers, non‑invasive messages) and that the asserted claims contain no inventive concept beyond conventional computer implementation.
- The Court granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding claims 15–18 of the ’652 patent invalid under § 101, and ordered the parties to file a joint status report within 21 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the asserted claims are directed to an abstract idea | Claims recite a concrete, multitiered networked architecture for automatic, non‑invasive content delivery (not abstract) | Claims are directed to the abstract idea of providing information without interfering with a user’s primary activity | Claims are directed to an abstract idea (providing information non‑invasively) |
| Whether the claims contain an inventive concept under Alice step two | The claims solve prior‑art problems in networked, windowed, multitasking systems and thus add an inventive concept | Claims merely use conventional computer/display technology to implement the abstract idea | No inventive concept: elements are conventional computer implementation and do not transform the abstract idea into patent‑eligible subject matter |
| Whether limiting the idea to a particular technological environment saves eligibility | Interval: limitation to networked computers/windowed systems provides a technological improvement | Defendants: technological environment limitation is insufficient; implementation is generic | Limitation to networked computers is insufficient; merely reciting generic computer components does not confer eligibility |
| Whether specification details could cure claim deficiencies | Interval: specification shows specific techniques for non‑invasive display and improvements | Defendants: claim text controls; unclaimed spec details cannot supply an inventive concept | Specification details not in the claims cannot provide the missing inventive concept; claims remain invalid |
Key Cases Cited
- Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (U.S. 2014) (two‑step framework for § 101; abstract idea analysis and search for inventive concept)
- Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (U.S. 2012) (limits on patenting laws of nature and abstract ideas)
- Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (U.S. 1972) (mental processes as patent‑ineligible)
- Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (consider claims as a whole at Alice step one)
- buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (generic computer implementation adds no inventive concept)
- Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (specification cannot supply an inventive concept missing from the claims)
- Milne ex rel. Coyne v. Stephen Slesinger, Inc., 430 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2005) (standard for judgment on the pleadings)