MyMail, Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC
313 F. Supp. 3d 1095
N.D. Cal.2018Background
- MyMail sued ooVoo and IAC for infringement of U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,275,863 and 9,021,070, which claim methods for automatically updating toolbar data on an Internet-connected user device.
- The asserted representative claims describe: (1) a device displaying a toolbar defined by toolbar-data in a database; (2) the device sending revision info to a server; (3) the server determining updates; (4) the device receiving update data and automatically updating the toolbar (e.g., adding or changing buttons).
- The patents are related (one is a continuation) and share nearly identical specifications and figures describing a client dispatch application that invokes a pinger to report database revision levels to a server.
- Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), arguing the asserted claims are patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in light of Alice.
- The district court treated claim 1 of each patent as representative, applied the two-step Alice framework, and considered whether any factual dispute (per Berkheimer) precluded resolution on the pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether representative claims are directed to an abstract idea under Alice step one | Claims recite a specific improvement to toolbar performance by enabling automatic, network-driven modification of toolbar data without user interaction | Claims are directed to updating software stored on a computer over a network, an abstract idea courts have rejected | Held: Claims are directed to the abstract idea of updating toolbar software over a network without user intervention |
| Whether the claims supply an "inventive concept" under Alice step two | Automatic/dynamic updating and reciting adding/updating toolbar buttons supplies a specific improvement and inventive concept | Limitations are generic computer components performing routine functions; adding/changing buttons is a conventional result of updating data | Held: No inventive concept — elements are generic/routine and their ordered combination does not transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter |
| Whether claim limitations ("automatically", toolbar-specific elements, or database updates) avoid preemption concerns | The toolbar-focused limitations and automatic updating narrow the claim and address software-arts problems | These are field-of-use or post-solution recitations and do not add non-conventional technical features | Held: Those limitations do not save eligibility; they are conventional and do not prevent improper preemption of an abstract updating process |
| Whether the case raised factual disputes that preclude resolution on pleadings (Berkheimer) | Plaintiff argued specification/factual issues could show unconventional programming or inventive implementation | Defendants argued nothing in the pleadings/spec disclosed unconventional functionality or inventive programming | Held: No factual dispute shown; record reflects only generic components and routine functions, so § 101 resolution on the pleadings was appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (establishes the two-step framework for § 101)
- Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012) (limits patentability for laws of nature and abstract ideas)
- Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (step-one analysis must identify what claims are "directed to")
- FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims covering collecting, analyzing, and reporting information are abstract)
- Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims directed to gathering, analyzing, and displaying information are abstract)
- DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims that solve Internet-centric problems by specific technical solutions can be eligible)
- Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (factual questions about whether elements are well‑understood, routine, conventional may preclude § 101 resolution)
- Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (§ 101 can be resolved on the pleadings when court understands the claimed subject matter)
- Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (claim construction not invariably prerequisite to § 101 analysis)
- BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-conventional arrangement of conventional elements can supply an inventive concept)
- Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (distributed architecture limitations can render claims inventive)
- buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (affirming § 101 dismissal on the pleadings)