West View Research, LLC v. Audi Ag
685 F. App'x 923
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- WVR appealed district court judgments holding 81 claims across several related patents patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101; the Federal Circuit affirmed.
- The patents describe systems using generic computer hardware, software, speech I/O, touchscreens, and networked servers to collect, analyze, and present information and tailored content to users.
- The court treated claim 63 of U.S. Patent No. 8,719,038 and claim 29 of U.S. Patent No. 8,065,156 as representative for the § 101 analysis.
- Representative claim 63 involves an interactive computerized apparatus (microphone, processors, touch-screen, speech synthesis) that can wirelessly send results to a user’s portable device and configure user-specific data.
- Representative claim 29 involves a computer-readable apparatus that receives user input, forwards it to a remote server to determine context and select advertising content, and presents that content; dependent claim tailoring function keys by topical selection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Asserted Claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept under Alice step one | Claims are directed to concrete, interactive computer systems that improve user interaction and content delivery | Claims are directed to the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, retrieving, and presenting information | Held directed to an abstract idea; not saved by specification of generic components |
| Whether the claims recite an "inventive concept" under Alice step two | The claimed combination of elements (interactive I/O, wireless delivery, user profiles) provides a nonconventional improvement | The elements are generic, conventional computer and network components implementing the abstract idea | Held lack an inventive concept; elements are well-known and described at a high level |
| Whether representative claims may be used for § 101 analysis of the Asserted Claims | Representative claims accurately reflect the scope and limitations at issue | Defendants argued representative claims are appropriate for the § 101 determination | Court accepted representative claims for the analysis and applied Alice to them |
| Standard of review for the district court's judgment on the pleadings and for § 101 questions | N/A (procedural) | N/A (procedural) | Judgment on the pleadings reviewed de novo under Ninth Circuit law; § 101 reviewed de novo under Federal Circuit precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (establishes the two-step framework for patent-eligibility under § 101)
- Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (collecting claims "directed to" information collection and display as abstract ideas)
- Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims focused on an improvement to computer functionality may be patent-eligible)
- Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (generic computer components do not supply an inventive concept)
- In re TLI Commc'ns LLC v. Automotive, L.L.C., 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting well-understood, routine, conventional activities are not inventive)
- Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (§ 101 questions reviewed under Federal Circuit precedent)
- Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent eligibility under § 101 is an issue of law reviewed de novo)
- Madey v. Duke Univ., 307 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (treating patent-law-unique issues consistent with Federal Circuit precedent)