Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
874 F.3d 1329
Fed. Cir.2017Background
- Two-Way Media owns patents (ʼ187, ʼ005, ʼ622, ʼ686) claiming methods/systems for multicasting/streaming real-time audio/video and tracking delivery (routing, controlling, monitoring, logging).
- Representative claims recite converting streams to packets, routing in response to user selections (often via "intermediate" servers), monitoring reception, and logging start/stop times or extent for commercial purposes.
- Defendants (Comcast, Verizon) moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), arguing the asserted claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
- The district court adopted Two-Way Media’s proposed claim constructions for the motion, declined to take judicial notice of prior‑PTO/court materials (they were deemed relevant to novelty, not § 101), and held the claims abstract and lacking an inventive concept under the Alice framework.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed: the claims were directed to abstract ideas (sending/directing/monitoring/recording delivery of information or measuring delivery for commercial purposes) and recited only conventional computer/network components and generic functions, not a saving inventive concept.
Issues
| Issue | Two‑Way's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the representative claims directed to patent‑eligible subject matter under § 101 (Alice step one)? | Claims tie to a specific scalable network architecture and solve technical problems (load, bottlenecking, scalability, precise recordkeeping). | Claims are directed to abstract ideas (sending/directing/monitoring/recording delivery or measuring delivery commercially). | Held: Directed to abstract ideas; Alice step one satisfied for exclusion. |
| Do claim constructions or specification‑disclosed architecture save the claims? | Proposed constructions (e.g., use of "intermediate computers") and spec describe a non‑conventional scalable architecture that should be read into claims. | Constructions merely invoke conventional computer/network components; the asserted architecture is not claimed in the representative claims. | Held: Constructions do not transform the claims; the claimed language does not recite the inventive architecture. |
| Do the claims contain an "inventive concept" (Alice step two)? | The ordered combination and system arrangement constitute a nonconventional inventive concept. | Limitations recite generic processing, routing, monitoring, and logging using conventional components and ordinary functions. | Held: No inventive concept; limitations are conventional in isolation and combination. |
| Are preemption or excluded evidence (prior proceedings) relevant to § 101 outcome? | Lack of preemption and prior‑PTO/court materials show novelty/nonobviousness and corroborate patentability under § 101. | Novelty/nonobviousness materials are irrelevant to the § 101 abstractness inquiry; preemption is addressed by Alice framework. | Held: District court properly excluded those materials for § 101 and preemption concerns were moot after Alice analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (articulates two‑step framework for § 101 analysis)
- Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims tied to specific self‑referential table found non‑abstract)
- Electric Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims to gathering/analyzing/displaying information held abstract)
- BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (inventive concept may arise from a non‑conventional arrangement of conventional elements)
- Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (generalized computer steps performing abstract functions are ineligible)
- RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (an inventive concept must be evident in the claims themselves)