Source: https://www.b2ipreport.com/swip-report/courts-hold-three-out-of-four-patents-invalid-under-35-u-s-c-101/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 04:23:59+00:00

Document:
I do not warrant the accuracy of the title of this post, which is based on anecdotally collected and reviewed data. It is nonetheless instructive that, in cases I located after a fairly through search, an overwhelming majority of patents facing patent-eligibility challenges in federal courts since my last blog post on the subject, i.e., between December 15, 2014, and January 10, 2015, have been held invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In addition to two Federal Circuit cases upholding finding of patent-ineligibility, the district court cases summarized below evaluated twenty-two patents for patentable subject matter under Section 101. Seventeen of these patents were held invalid, while five were upheld (and in each of the three cases where motions of invalidity were denied, the accused infringer remains free to assert the patent-ineligibility invalidity defense at a later stage of proceedings).
The claims generally recite a method of 1) extracting data from hard copy documents using an automated digitizing unit such as a scanner, 2) recognizing specific information from the extracted data, and 3) storing that information in a memory. This method can be performed by software on an automated teller machine (ATM) that recognizes information written on a scanned check, such as the check's amount, and populates certain data fields with that information in a computer's memory.
OpenTV, Inc. v. Netflix Inc., Case No. 14-cv-01525-RS (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2014). Granted summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for U.S. Patent Nos. 7,305,691, and 8,332,268, but denied motion relating to U.S. Patent No. 7,055,169.
U.S. Patent No. 7,305,691 claimed “[a] method for providing  targeted programming to a user outside of the user's home.” The claim recited an unpatentable abstract idea because “[t]he concept of gathering information about one's intended market and attempting to customize the information then provided is as old as the saying, ‘know your audience.’” Implementation by a generic computer did not save the claims.
Cloud Satchel, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., Civ. No. 13-941-SLR; Civ. No. 13-942-SLR (D. Del. Dec. 18, 2014). Granted summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,862,321 and 6,144,997. The patents were “directed to . . . enabling the transmission and storage of document references or ‘tokens,’ each of which is associated with an electronic document stored in a database,” which allows “mobile users to access all of their electronic documents without being limited by the memory available on a mobile device.” The representative patent claim recited “the implementation of the abstract idea of cataloguing documents to facilitate their retrieval from storage in the field of remote computing.” The claimed method used standard hardware, and therefore its abstractedness, was not saved by any inventive concept.
Fairfield Indus. v. Wireless Seismic, Inc., Civil Action No. 4: 14-CV-2972 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2014). Denied a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a suit alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,644,111 (and other patents that were not at issue in the motion to dismiss). The ’111 patent claimed “[a] method of seismic data acquisition” that used a string of “acquisition units” to send data to “concentrator units.” The defendant argued that the patent claims were directed to “the abstract idea of replacing the cables in seismic sensor arrays with wireless communications” and “the concept of relaying messages through intermediaries, a method that has been known and used for years.” However, the court found “that the use of a string of seismic acquisition units and different transmission parameters constitute inventive concepts that transcend the abstract idea of a relay.” The court also thought that “[t]he claim's close connection to a specific machine, the seismic acquisition unit, further supports a finding of patent-eligibility.” The court therefore denied the motion, albeit without prejudice.
KomBea Corp. v. Noguar L.C., Case No. 2:13-CV-957 TS (D. Utah Dec. 23, 2014). Granted summary judgment of “invalidity of United States Patents Nos. 8,503,619; 7,933,387; 8,438,494; and 7,640,510 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” The patents “generally pertain to a telemarketing system that allows an agent to use prerecorded scripts, live voice, and interjections during a telemarketing call to tailor the call to potential customers while giving the impression that the conversation is person-to-person.” The court agreed that the “patents simply apply abstract ideas through a computer,” and hence failed to recite patentable subject matter.
Morales v. Square, Inc., Civil Action No. 4: 14-CV-2972 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 30, 2014). Claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,872,589 held patent-ineligible and Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss granted. Claim directed to “method of data communication” encompassed “an abstract idea because it describes the fundamental concept of relaying a signal containing the sender's identity.” The claimed method used only conventional hardware and thus no additional inventive concept saved the claims.
Ameranth, Inc. v. Genesis Gaming Solutions, Inc., case no. 8:11-cv-00189 (C.D. Cal. Jan 2, 2015). Denied motions for summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for U.S. Patent Nos. 7,431,650 and 7,878,909. The patents claimed “systems and software programs that help casinos run poker games, including the maintenance, processing, and display of player and game information, and an electronic player wait list,” as well as “the creation, modification, and display of dealer schedules based on dealer preferences and other criteria.” Concerning the ’909 patent, it claimed “computer system elements might only amount to a generic computer in the context of implementing the claimed program suite.” However, this was a motion for summary judgment where there needed to be no dispute as to material fact, and the defendant had not met its burden of showing “that the computer system elements [do not] combine to provide a sufficient ‘inventive concept’ beyond the abstract idea.” A similar analysis pertained to the ’650 patent. Further, the court had already found U.S. Patent No. 8,393,969 patent-eligible in a November 14, 2014, decision.

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