Visual Memory LLC v. Nvidia Corporation
867 F.3d 1253
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Visual Memory sued NVIDIA alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,953,740, which claims a computer memory system with programmable operational characteristics (separate caches and fast-page-mode main memory) configurable based on the type of processor.
- The patent purports to improve memory-system performance and interoperability by configuring cache behavior (e.g., storing code vs. non-code) and page-biasing according to processor type.
- NVIDIA moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing the claims are directed to the abstract idea of categorical data storage and lack an inventive concept under Alice.
- The district court granted dismissal, finding the claims abstract at Alice step one and conventional at step two.
- The Federal Circuit reversed, holding the claims are directed to a non-abstract technological improvement in computer memory systems and thus are not ineligible under § 101; the court remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ’740 claims are directed to patent‑ineligible subject matter under Alice step one | Claims recite a concrete improvement: a memory system with programmable operational characteristics that configure caches and main‑memory page behavior based on processor type, improving performance | Claims are an abstract idea: categorical data storage implemented with generic computer components; the programmable characteristic is a functional “black box” | The claims are directed to an improvement in computer functionality (memory-system architecture) and are not abstract; court did not reach step two |
| Whether conventional computer components render the claims ineligible at Alice step two | The claimed combination and configurability produce a technological improvement; code appendix and specification support implementation | Even if abstract, claims add only conventional components (main memory, caches, bus, processor) and lack an inventive concept | Court concluded step one resolved the § 101 issue in Visual Memory’s favor and did not analyze inventive concept; left validity, novelty, and enablement issues for other sections of the law |
| Proper inquiry on Rule 12(b)(6) review: use of specification/microfiche code in construing claims | Specification and microfiche code support that the invention provides specific improvements and plausibly teaches implementation; factual inferences construed for non‑movant | Microfiche and implementation details cannot be used to save claims that are abstract when claims are read as written | On 12(b)(6) review, the court construed factual inferences in favor of plaintiff and found the claim language and specification sufficiently tethered to an asserted technological improvement |
Key Cases Cited
- Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (establishes two‑step framework for § 101: determine if claims are directed to an abstract idea, then search for an inventive concept)
- Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012) (limits patentability for laws of nature and requires inventive concept to transform claims)
- Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality are not abstract at Alice step one)
- Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claims using sensors in a nonconventional manner to solve a technical problem are directed to patent‑eligible systems)
- Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims for data extraction/classification held directed to abstract idea)
- In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims for classifying/storing images held abstract; mere use of phones/servers did not supply a specific improvement)