Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC
657 F.3d 1323
| Fed. Cir. | 2011Background
- Ultramercial sued Hulu, YouTube, and WildTangent for infringement of the '545 patent; Hulu and YouTube were dismissed.
- The district court dismissed Ultramercial's claims for lack of patent-eligible subject matter under § 101.
- The '545 patent claims a method for monetizing and distributing copyrighted media over the Internet in which a consumer views an advertisement to gain free access.
- Claim 1 recites steps including receiving media, selecting sponsor messages, restricting access, offering free access on condition of viewing ads, recording the transaction, and receiving payment from the sponsor.
- Ultramercial challenges the district court's § 101 analysis and appeals the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the '545 patent is patent-eligible under § 101 | Ultramercial contends the claims are patent-eligible as a practical, computer-implemented method. | WildTangent argued the claims are abstract ideas not patent-eligible. | Yes; claims are patent-eligible as a practical application. |
| Whether claim construction is required for § 101 analysis | Ultramercial argues construction is unnecessary for § 101 here. | WildTangent/defendant reason construction aids abstractness assessment. | No formal claim construction required for this § 101 decision. |
| Whether the abstract-idea exception applies to this method | Ultramercial asserts it applies a concrete technique improving prior art. | Defendant asserts the concept of advertising as currency is abstract. | Not abstract in this practical, Internet-based monetization context. |
| Whether the invention involves a 'particular machine' or sufficient programming | Ultramercial highlights the computer/software implementation as a new machine. | WildTangent contends lack of specificity renders abstract. | The invention involves substantial computer implementation and is not precluded by abstractness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (U.S. 2010) (machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for patent-eligible processes)
- Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (Supreme Court 1981) (an abstract idea applied through a computer or process can be patentable)
- Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (Supreme Court 1980) (broad statutory categories with liberal patent protection for inventions)
- Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (§ 101 is a coarse eligibility filter; other patentability requirements apply)
- In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (programming creates a new machine; software can render a special-purpose computer)
- CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (mental steps doctrine is narrow; not all steps render a claim abstract)
- Prometheus Labs., Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., 628 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (patent-ineligible categories are not compelled by the statutory text)
- J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Intl., Inc., 534 U.S. 124 (Supreme Court 2001) (section 101 is dynamic and encompasses unforeseen inventions)
- Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (Supreme Court 1972) (abstract mathematical algorithms can be patentable when applied practically)
- Research Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (coarse eligibility filter and need for substantive patentability analysis)