Source: https://www.b2ipreport.com/swip-report/automated-delivery-notification-ineligible-subject-matter/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 04:15:42+00:00

Document:
The Southern District of Florida recently granted a motion to dismiss in favor of Minted LLC, and a motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of ShoppersChoice.com LLC based on lack of patent-eligible subject matter, under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the Alice/Mayo test. At issue wasclaim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 9,373,261, directed to a system for automating notification of delivery or pickup of a good or service. Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC v. Minted, LLC, No. 16-81669-CIV (S.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2019); Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC, No. 16-81677-CIV (S.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2019). Claim 11 of the ‘261 patent was ineligible because the claim was directed toward the abstract idea of “providing advance notification of the pickup or delivery of a mobile thing,” and the claim recites “purely generic and conventional computer equipment” that operates in a “routine and conventional” manner.
code that, during the notification communication session, enables the first party to select whether or not to engage in a communication session with a second party having access to particulars of the pickup or delivery.
The court applied the two-step Alice framework to Minted’s 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and to ShoppersChoice.com’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Citing Mobile Telecommunications Techs., LLC v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 173 F. Supp.
Moreover, under Alice step two, Claim 11 “recites generic computer components that can be configured to perform purely conventional computer functions.” The court found that Claim 11 of the ‘261 patent “does not contain any limitation that requires components of the system to operate in an unconventional manner.” Instead, the “specification makes clear that the components and processes are well-known and that the components are not arranged in any specific or limiting way.” Citing Mobile Telecommunications Techs, the court determined that “[a] patent directed to the abstract idea of providing delivery notification that can be implemented with general computer components does not contain an ‘inventive concept.’” Therefore, the court found claim 11 failed the Alice framework and was drawn toward ineligible subject matter.
As set forth in Secure Cam, LLC v. Tend Insights, Inc., generic structure is not enough to establish patent-eligibility. This case illustrates that additional features that “add a degree of particularity” will not be sufficient to overcome the pitfalls of generic components operating in a conventional manner to perform an abstract idea. To be patent eligible, software claims need to be directed toward functional improvements to the computer and include specific structure that provides the functional improvement. In other words, to satisfy the requirements of § 101, software claims should include specific structure that causes the computer to operate in an unconventional way.

References: § 101
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 101