Smart Software, Inc. v. Planningedge, LLC
192 F. Supp. 3d 243
D. Mass.2016Background
- Smart Software sues PlanningEdge for patent infringement involving forecasting intermittent demand.
- PlanningEdge moves to dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to an abstract idea.
- Court applies Alice/Mayo framework to determine patent eligibility at the pleading stage.
- Patented claims at issue are Claims 1, 10, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 6,205,431.
- The ’431 patent describes forecasting intermittent demand using sampling, summing, and generating lead time demand sums.
- Court finds the claims fail under § 101 and grants dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the claims directed to an abstract idea under § 101? | Smart argues the claims implement a statistical method, not a mere abstract idea. | PlanningEdge contends the claims are directed to abstract forecasting concepts with no inventive concept. | Yes; claims directed to abstract idea. |
| Does the claim set contain an inventive concept transforming the abstract idea? | Smart asserts there is a novel statistical application improving inventory forecasting. | PlanningEdge asserts no inventive concept; computer implementation is generic. | No inventive concept; not patent-eligible. |
| Does Diehr/DDR Holdings save the claims from ineligibility? | Smart relies on Diehr and DDR Holdings to show a patentable improvement. | PlanningEdge distinguishes those cases as not present here. | Distinguishable; Diehr/DDR do not save the claims. |
| Does Claim 10 (means-plus-function) affect § 101 analysis? | Claim construction hearing needed to resolve § 112(f) issue and impact eligibility. | No meaningful structures identified; not enough to alter § 101 result. | No impact; § 101 analysis remains failing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (U.S. 2014) (two-step framework for patent eligibility)
- Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (U.S. 2012) (two-step Mayo/Alice analysis for abstract ideas)
- Diehr, Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (U.S. 1981) (improved process judgment when combining math with a transforming structure)
- DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer-technology-specific solution to a problem arising in networks)
- Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (abstract idea with computer elements insufficient for patent eligibility)
- Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (computer implementation alone does not provide inventive concept)
- Content Extraction & Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (abstract ideas not patentable when claims lack inventive concept)