SAP America, Inc. v. Investpic, LLC
260 F. Supp. 3d 705
N.D. Tex.2017Background
- SAP sued Investpic seeking a declaratory judgment that SAP’s products do not infringe and that U.S. Patent No. 6,349,291 (the ’291 Patent) is invalid; Investpic counterclaimed for infringement.
- SAP moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) arguing all claims of the ’291 Patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to abstract ideas per Alice/Mayo.
- The ’291 Patent claims methods and systems for resampled statistical analysis of financial/investment data using a bias parameter (e.g., bootstrap, jackknife, cross-validation), plotting results, and networked/parallel processing to provide reports.
- Claim 1 and Claim 11 are independent method claims; other method and system claims depend from them and add specifics (resampling methods, plots, network/internet, parallel processors, alerts, web front-end).
- The court analyzed eligibility under the two-step Alice framework, focusing on claim language and finding the core limitations recite mathematical calculations and data manipulation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patent eligibility under § 101 (Alice step 1) | Claims are directed to abstract ideas: mathematical calculations and data manipulation | Claims solve technical/data-science problems and thus are not abstract; combine frequentist and Bayesian ideas | Held: Claims are directed to abstract ideas (math + data manipulation) |
| Alice step 2 — inventive concept | No inventive concept; limitations are generic pre/post-solution steps and generic computer use | Dependent claims and network/parallel-processing/system elements provide inventive concept and technical improvement | Held: Additional claim limitations are insignificant pre/post-solution activity or generic computer components; no inventive concept |
| Dependent claims specifying resampling methods (bootstrap/jackknife/cross-validation) | These specifics do not save claims — still mathematical/data manipulation | These specify concrete technical methods and parameters | Held: These merely identify particular mathematical methods and do not supply an inventive concept |
| System claims analogous to method claims | System claims merely implement abstract method on generic hardware/networks | System recitations (databases, front end, parallel processors) make them technical | Held: System claims are invalid too — they are analogous implementations using generic components and lack inventive concept |
Key Cases Cited
- Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014) (establishes two-step test for abstract-idea patent eligibility)
- Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012) (judicial exceptions to § 101 and analytic framework)
- Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978) (novelty does not render mathematical formulas patentable)
- Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972) (mathematical algorithms are abstract ideas)
- Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (§ 101 resolved at pleading stage; focus on claims)
- Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (focus on claims in § 101 analysis)
- Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims improving computer functionality can be patent-eligible)
- DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (specific web-related solutions can satisfy § 101)
- McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am., Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims to specific rule-based automation held not abstract)
- Bancorp Servs. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, 687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (system claims analogous to method claims fail § 101 when they add only conventional computer components)