Lumen View Technology v. FindTheBest

8/13/2019 Lumen View Technology v. FindTheBest

1/36

UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTSOUTHERN DI STRI CT OF NEW YORK- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lumen Vi ew Technol ogy LLC,

Pl ai nt i f f ,

- v -

Fi ndt hebest . com, I nc. ,

Def endant .

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

X::

::::::::::X

13 CI V. 3599 (DLC)

OPI NI ON & ORDER

APPEARANCES

For t he pl ai nt i f f :

Dami an Wasser bauerAeton Law Par t ners, LLP101 Cent er poi nt Dr i ve, Sui t e 105Mi ddl et own, CT 06457

For t he def endant :

J oseph LeventhalLevent hal Law, LLP600 West Br oadway, Sui t e 700San Di ego, CA 92101

DENI SE COTE, Di st r i ct J udge:

On Sept ember 24, 2013, def endant Fi ndt hebest . com, I nc.

( Fi ndt hebest ) moved f or j udgment on t he pl eadi ngs i n t hi s

pat ent i nf r i ngement act i on pur suant t o Fed. R. Ci v. P. 12( c) on

t he gr ound t hat t he pat ent on whi ch pl ai nt i f f Lumen Vi ew

Technol ogy LLC ( Lumen Vi ew) predi cat es i t s cl ai m f or

Case 1:13-cv-03599-DLC Document 55 Filed 11/22/13 Page 1 of 36


2/362

i nf r i ngement i s i nval i d f or f ai l ur e t o cl ai m pat ent - el i gi bl e

subj ect mat t er . For t he r easons that f ol l ow, t he pat ent cl ai ms

t he abst r act i dea of comput er assi st ed matchmaki ng and i s

i nval i d under 35 U. S. C. 101 ( Sect i on 101) . The def endant s

mot i on f or j udgment on t he pl eadi ngs i s grant ed.

BACKGROUND

Fi ndt hebest i s a cor por at i on t hat oper at es a websi t e whi ch

mat ches users wi t h goods or servi ces accor di ng t o cr i t er i a t hey

ent er . Lumen Vi ew i s a company t hat owns pat ent s and l i censes

t hemt o other users f or f ees. On May 29, 2013, Lumen Vi ew

br ought sui t agai nst Fi ndt hebest on t he gr ound t hat t he mat chi ng

pr ocess i n Fi ndt hebest s websi t e al l egedl y i nf r i nged a pat ent

owned by Lumen Vi ew. That patent i s Uni t ed St ates Patent No.

8, 069, 073 ( 073 pat ent ) .

The 073 pat ent

The 073 pat ent i s ent i t l ed Syst em and Met hod f or

Faci l i t at i ng Bi l at er al and Mul t i l at er al Deci si on- Maki ng. I t i s

compr i sed of one i ndependent cl ai m and ei ght dependent cl ai ms.

The appl i cat i on f or t he patent was f i l ed i n Apr i l 2010, and t he

pat ent was i ssued on November 29, 2011. The Apr i l 2010

appl i cat i on was a cont i nuat i on of appl i cat i on f or t he

i nvent i on cl ai med by t hi s pat ent , and t he i ni t i al appl i cat i on

was made i n 1999. The i nvent or s of t he 073 pat ent ar e l i st ed



3/36

3

as Ei l een C. Shapi r o and St even J . Mi nt z. Li st ed as t he

assi gnee of t he pat ent i s a l i mi t ed l i abi l i t y company cal l ed

Dal t on Sent r y, LLC. Lumen Vi ew asser t s t hat i t i s t he

excl usi ve l i censee of t he 073 pat ent and possesses al l r i ght s

of r ecover y under t he 073 pat ent , i ncl udi ng t he ri ght t o sue

and r ecover al l damages f or i nf r i ngement t her eof , i ncl udi ng past

i nf r i ngement .

The I ndependent Cl ai m ( Cl ai m 1) of t he 073 pat ent

The i ndependent cl ai m of t he 073 pat ent ( Cl ai m 1) st at es

i n f ul l :

We cl ai m: A comput er - i mpl ement ed met hod f or f aci l i t at i ngeval uat i on, i n connect i on wi t h t he pr ocur ement or del i ver yof pr oduct s or ser vi ces, i n a cont ext of at l east one of( i ) a f i nanci al t r ansacti on and ( i i ) oper at i on of anent er pr i se, such cont ext i nvol vi ng a f i r st cl ass of par t i esi n a f i r st r ol e and a second cl ass of count er par t i es i n asecond r ol e, t he method compr i si ng:

I n a f i r st comput er pr ocess, r et r i evi ng f i r st

pr ef er ence dat a f r om a f i r st di gi t al st or age medi um, t hef i r st pr ef er ence dat a i ncl udi ng at t r i but e l evel s der i vedf r om choi ces made by at l east one of t he par t i es i n t hef i r s t cl ass;

I n a second comput er pr ocess, r et r i evi ng secondpr ef er ence dat a f r om a second di gi t al st or age medi um, t hesecond pr ef er ence dat a i ncl udi ng at t r i but e l evel s der i vedf r om choi ces made by at l east one of t he count er par t i es i nt he second cl ass;

I n a t hi r d comput er pr ocess, f or a sel ect ed par t y,per f or mi ng mul t i l at er al anal yses of t he sel ect ed par t y s

pr ef erence data and t he pr ef erence data of each of t hecount er par t i es, and comput i ng a cl oseness- of - f i t val uebased t hereon; and

I n a f our t h comput er pr ocess , usi ng t he comput edcl oseness- of - f i t val ues t o der i ve and pr ovi de a l i stmatchi ng t he sel ect ed par t y and at l east one of t hecount er par t i es.



4/364

The summar y of t he i nvent i on provi si on of t he pat ent

el abor at es t hat :

The met hod i nvol ves suppl yi ng t o at l east one of t he

par t i es a ser i es of f or ced choi ce quest i ons

1

so as to el i ci tpar t y r esponses; suppl yi ng t o at l east one of t hecount er par t i es a ser i es of f or ced choi ce quest i ons so as t oel i ci t count er par t y responses; and del i ver i ng a l i stmatchi ng t he at l east one par t y and t he at l east onecount er par t y accor di ng t o anal ysi s of pr ef er ence pr of i l esdet er mi ned usi ng conj oi nt anal ysi s of t he par t y responsesand t he count er par t y r esponses. I n al t er nat i ve embodi ment st he l i st may be r anked accor di ng t o cl oseness of f i t .

I n summar y, t he pur por t ed i nvent i on di scl osed by t he 073

pat ent i s a met hod of mat chmaki ng wher eby one or more par t i es on

each si de i nput at t r i but e pr ef er ences and i nt ensi t y of

pr ef erence data and then a comput er matches t he par t i es on each

si de by a cl oseness- of - f i t pr ocess and pr oduces a l i st .

The pat ent al so cont ai ns i n i t s speci f i cat i on exampl es

i l l ust r at i ng pot ent i al uses of t he cl ai med pr ocess. One exampl e

i s t he mat chi ng of j ob appl i cant s wi t h empl oyer s based on bot h

par t i es pr ef er r ed at t r i but es i n appl i cant s and empl oyer s,

r espect i vel y. The speci f i cat i on cont empl at es havi ng each par t y

di scl ose desi r ed at t r i but es, and i nt ensi t y of pr ef er ences wi t h

r espect t o t hose at t r i but es, and t hen havi ng a comput er match

empl oyees and empl oyer s whose desi r ed at t r i but es and i nt ensi t i es

of pr ef er ences mut ual l y al i gn. Al so l i st ed as an exempl ar use

of t he 073 pat ent ed met hod i s t he mat chi ng of col l ege

1 A f or ced choi ce quest i on i s a quest i on wi t h a cl osed set ofpossi bl e r esponses.



5/36

5

appl i cant s and . . . col l eges seeki ng appl i cant s by havi ng each

i nput pr ef er ence dat a.

The Dependent Cl ai ms of t he 073 pat ent

Cl ai ms 2 t hr ough 9 of t he 073 patent are al l dependent on

Cl ai m 1. They pur por t t o add l i mi t at i ons t o Cl ai m 1 s cl ai med

pr ocess of comput er i zed bi l at er al and mul t i l at er al deci si on-

maki ng. The cl ai ms ar e as f ol l ows: 2

2. A met hod accor di ng t o cl ai m 1, wher ei n t he l i st i sr anked accor di ng t o cl oseness of f i t .

3. A met hod accor di ng t o cl ai m 1, f ur t her compr i si ngr ecei vi ng co- eval uat or choi ces made by a par t y co- eval uat oror a count er par t y co- eval uat or , wher ei n t he l i st mat chest he at l east one par t y and t he at l east one count er par t yaccor di ng t o a mul t i l at er al anal ysi s of pr ef er ence dat adeter mi ned usi ng such co- eval uat or choi ces.

4. A met hod accor di ng t o cl ai m 1, wher ei n t he par t ychoi ces r eveal , wi t h r espect t o each l evel of each of af i r st ser i es of at t r i but es, a ut i l i t y val ue whi ch i ndi cat est he val ue t hat t he par t y pl aces on t he l evel of t heat t r i but e.

5. A met hod accor di ng t o cl ai m 4, wher ei n t he par t y

choi ces r eveal t he ut i l i t y val ues wi t hout t he ut i l i t yval ues bei ng pr ovi ded expl i ci t l y.

6. A met hod accordi ng t o cl ai m 4, wher ei n t hecount er par t y choi ces r eveal , wi t h r espect t o each l evel ofeach of a second ser i es of at t r i but es t hat compl ement s t hef i r st ser i es of at t r i but es, a ut i l i t y val ue whi ch i ndi cat est he val ue t hat t he count er par t y pl aces on t he l evel of t heat t r i but e.

7. A met hod accordi ng t o cl ai m 6, wher ei n t hecount er par t y choi ces r eveal t he ut i l i t y val ues wi t houtt he ut i l i t y val ues bei ng pr ovi ded expl i ci t l y.

8. A met hod accor di ng t o cl ai m 1, wher ei n at l east oneof t he f i r st pr ef er ence dat a, second pr ef er ence dat a, andt he l i st i s obt ai ned f r om a r emot e ser ver over acommuni cat i on net wor k.

2 The par t i es have not const r ued t hese dependent cl ai ms. Al lcl ai m const r uct i on has f ocused on t he t er ms i n Cl ai m 1.



6/366

9. A met hod accor di ng t o cl ai m 1, wher ei n t he par t ychoi ces and t he count er par t y choi ces ar e pr ovi ded t o ar emote ser ver over a communi cat i on net work.

Al l of t hese met hod cl ai ms are expr ess l y pr edi cat ed on

Cl ai m 1. 3 Cl ai m 2 ( per haps r edundant l y) cl ai ms t he cl oseness of

f i t component of Cl ai m 1 s comput er i zed bi l at er al and

mul t i l at er al deci si on- maki ng pr ocess cl ai m. Cl ai m 3 cl ai ms the

pr ocess of i ncl usi on of a co- eval uat or s dat a i n t he

mul t i l at er al anal ysi s. 4

Pr ocedur al Hi st or y

Cl ai m 4 cl ai ms t he pr ocess of

at t r i but i ng a ut i l i t y val ue, i ndi cat i ng t he val ue a par t y pl aces

on an at t r i but e. Cl ai m 5 per mi t s t he ut i l i t y val ues t o be

cr eat ed but not r eveal ed t o t he par t i ci pant s. Cl ai ms 6 and 7

ar e i dent i cal t o Cl ai ms 4 and 5 but ar e appl i ed t o a

count er par t y, r at her t han t he i ni t i al par t y. Cl ai ms 8 and 9

al l ow t he pr ocess cl ai med i n Cl ai m 1 t o be pr ovi ded t o a r emove

server over a communi cat i on net wor k - - pr esumabl y t he I nt er net .

On May 29, 2013, Lumen Vi ew f i l ed sui t agai nst Fi ndt hebest

f or i nf r i ngement of t he 073 pat ent . I n i t s compl ai nt , Lumen

Vi ew cont ends t hat Fi ndt hebest i nf r i nges on t he 073 pat ent i n

3 Cl ai ms 5 and 6 are met hod[ s] accordi ng t o [ C] l ai m 4, andCl ai m 7 i s a met hod accor di ng t o Cl ai m 6. But si nce Cl ai ms 4i s a met hod accor di ng t o Cl ai m 1, Cl ai ms 5, 6, and 7 ar e al lul t i mat el y pr edi cat ed on Cl ai m 1.4 An exampl e of such a co- eval uat or gi ven i n t he Speci f i cat i oni s a gui dance counsel or , whose pr ef er ence dat a mi ght pl ay a r ol ei n t he matchmaki ng between a col l ege and a col l ege appl i cant .



7/36

7

[ O] f f er [ i ng] r ecommendat i on servi ces vi a t hewww. f i ndt hebest . com websi t e ( Def endant Websi t e ) f ori ndi vi dual s seeki ng the pur chase of pr oduct s andi ndi vi dual s of f er i ng t o sel l t he pr oduct s, by execut [ i ng]a comput er i mpl ement ed met hod f or f aci l i t at i ng eval uat i on,

i n connect i on wi t h t he pr ocur ement or del i ver y of pr oduct sor ser vi ces, i n a cont ext of t he oper at i on of anent er pr i se, such cont ext i nvol vi ng a f i r st cl ass of par t i es( e. g. , consumer s) i n a f i r st r ol e and a second cl ass ofcount er par t i es i n a second r ol e ( e. g. , i ndi vi dual s sel l i nggoods) .

On Sept ember 24, Fi ndt hebest moved f or j udgment on the

pl eadi ngs on t he gr ound t hat t he 073 patent was i nval i d because

i t cl ai med an abst r act i dea, whi ch does not const i t ut e pat ent

el i gi bl e subj ect mat t er under Sect i on 101 of t he codi f i ed Pat ent

Act . 35 U. S. C. 101. The mot i on was f ul l y submi t t ed on

Oct ober 18.

DI SCUSSI ON

The st andar d gover ni ng a Sect i on 101 chal l enge i s wel l

est abl i shed. Whet her a cl ai m i s dr awn t o pat ent - el i gi bl e

subj ect mat t er under 101 i s a t hr eshol d i nqui r y, and any cl ai m

of an appl i cat i on f ai l i ng t he r equi r ement s of 101 must be

r ej ect ed even i f i t meet s al l of t he ot her l egal r equi r ement s of

pat ent abi l i t y. I n r e Bi l ski , 545 F. 3d 943, 950 ( Fed. Ci r .

2008) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ( her ei naf t er Bi l ski I ) . A pat ent i s

pr esumed t o be val i d by st atut e. See 35 U. S. C. 282. The

par t y chal l engi ng t he val i di t y of a pat ent bear s t he bur den of

pr ovi ng i nval i di t y by cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence. See, e. g. ,



8/368

Pf i zer , I nc. v. Apot ex, I nc. , 480 F. 3d 1348, 1359 ( Fed. Ci r .

2007) . The quest i on of whet her a pat ent i s i nval i d under

Sect i on 101 of t he codi f i ed Pat ent Act i s an i ssue of l aw.

Bi l ski I , 545 F. 3d at 951.

Sect i on 101 of t he Pat ent Act

Sect i on 101 of t he codi f i ed Pat ent Act def i nes t he subj ect

mat t er t hat i s pat ent abl e:

Whoever i nvent s or di scover s any new and usef ul pr ocess ,machi ne, manuf actur e, or composi t i on of mat t er , or any newand usef ul i mpr ovement t hereof , may obt ai n a patentt her ef or , subj ect t o the condi t i ons and r equi r ement s oft hi s t i t l e.

35 U. S. C. 101 ( Sect i on 101) . Sect i on 101 l ays out f our

subj ect mat t er cat egor i es of i nvent i ons or di scover i es el i gi bl e

f or pat ent pr ot ect i on: pr ocesses, machi nes, manuf act ur es, or

composi t i ons of mat t er . The 073 pat ent cl ai ms a met hod f or

f aci l i t at i ng eval uat i on, whi ch pl ai nl y i s a pr ocess. Sect i on

100( b) of t he Pat ent Act pr ovi des t hat [ t ] he t er m pr ocess

means process, ar t or met hod, and i ncl udes a new use of a known

pr ocess , machi ne, manuf act ur e, composi t i on of mat t er , or

mater i al . 35 U. S. C. 100. The Supr eme Cour t has el aborated

on t hi s st at ut or y def i ni t i on:

A pr ocess i s a mode of t r eat ment of cer t ai n mat er i al s t opr oduce a gi ven r esul t . I t i s an act , or a ser i es of act s,per f ormed upon t he subj ect - mat t er t o be t r ansf ormed andr educed t o a di f f er ent st at e or t hi ng. I f new and usef ul ,i t i s j ust as pat ent abl e as i s a pi ece of machi ner y. I nt he l anguage of t he pat ent l aw, i t i s an ar t . Themachi ner y poi nt ed out as sui t abl e t o per f or m t he pr ocess



9/36

9

may or may not be new or patent abl e; whi l st t he pr ocessi t sel f may be al t ogether new, and pr oduce an ent i r el y newr esul t . The pr ocess requi r es t hat cer t ai n t hi ngs shoul d bedone wi t h cer t ai n subst ances, and i n a cer t ai n or der ; butt he t ool s t o be used i n doi ng t hi s may be of secondary

consequence.

Di amond v. Di ehr , 450 U. S. 175, 18384 ( 1981) .

Cour t s const r ue t he Sect i on 101 def i ni t i ons br oadl y. I n

choosi ng such expansi ve t erms . . . modi f i ed by t he compr ehensi ve

any, Congr ess pl ai nl y cont empl at ed t hat t he pat ent l aws woul d

be gi ven wi de scope. Di amond v. Chakrabar t y, 447 U. S. 303, 308

( 1980) . The Supr eme Cour t has recogni zed, however , t hr ee

speci f i c except i ons t o [ Sect i on 101 s] br oad pat ent - el i gi bi l i t y

pr i nci pl es: l aws of nat ur e, physi cal phenomena, and abst r act

i deas. Bi l ski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct . 3218, 3225 ( 2010) ( ci t at i on

omi t t ed) . The t hr ee except i ons are consi st ent wi t h t he

[ st at ut or y] not i on t hat a pat ent abl e pr ocess must be new and

usef ul . . . [ and] have def i ned t he r each of t he [ pat ent ]

st at ut e as a mat t er of st at ut or y st ar e deci si s goi ng back 150

year s. I d. These except i ons pr ot ect f r om monopol i zat i on

concept s t hat const i t ut e par t of t he st or ehouse of knowl edge of

al l men . . . f r ee t o al l men and r eser ved excl usi vel y to none.

Funk Br ot her s Seed Co. v. Kal o I nocul ant Co. , 333 U. S. 127, 130

( 1948) . Ei nst ei n coul d not pat ent hi s cel ebr at ed l aw t hat E =

mc2; nor coul d Newt on have patent ed t he l aw of gr avi t y. Di ehr ,

450 U. S. at 185 ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .



10/3610

I . Cl ai m 1 of t he 073 pat ent under Sect i on 101Fi ndt hebest cont ends t hat Cl ai m 1 of t he 073 pat ent i s not

dr awn t o pat ent el i gi bl e subj ect mat t er under Sect i on 101

because t he cl ai med pr ocess const i t ut es t he abst r act i dea of

mat chmaki ng. [ A] bst r act i nt el l ect ual concept s ar e not

pat ent abl e, as t hey ar e t he basi c t ool s of sci ent i f i c and

t echnol ogi cal wor k. Got t schal k v. Benson, 409 U. S. 63, 67

( 1972) . A pr i nci pl e, i n t he abst r act , i s a f undament al t r ut h;

an or i gi nal cause; a mot i ve; t hese cannot be pat ent ed, as no one

can cl ai m i n ei t her of t hem an excl usi ve r i ght . Le Roy v.

Tatham, 55 U. S. 156, 175 ( 1853) .

Cour t s have had some di f f i cul t y def i ni ng wi t h pr eci si on t he

l i ne between an i mper mi ss i bl y abst r act i dea and a pat ent abl e

pr ocess . But t he Supr eme Cour t i n t he 2010 case of Bi l ski , 130

S. Ct . 3218, pr ovi ded l ower cour t s wi t h some gui dance i n dr awi ng

t he l i ne. Al t hough decl i ni ng t o pr ovi de an aut hor i t at i ve

def i ni t i on of pr ocess f or pur poses of Sect i on 101, t he Cour t

di r ect ed l ower cour t s t o l ook to, as gui depost s, i t s pr evi ous

appl i cat i ons of t he abst r act i dea except i on i n t he cases of

Benson v. Kappos, 409 U. S. 63, Par ker v. Fl ook, 437 U. S. 584

( 1978) , and Di amond v. Di eher , 450 U. S. 175. Bi l ski , 130 S. Ct .

at 3231. The Bi l ski Cour t sai d t hat t he Feder al Ci r cui t s

machi ne or t r ansf or mat i on t est , set out i n Bi l ski I , 545 F. 3d

at 958, shoul d serve as a usef ul and i mport ant cl ue and an



11/36

11

i nvest i gat i ve tool f or det er mi ni ng whet her a pat ent cl ai ms

pat ent el i gi bl e subj ect mat t er under Sect i on 101, i n conj unct i on

wi t h compar i son of t he above ment i oned Cour t pr ecedent s, as par t

of a hol i st i c anal ysi s. Bi l ski , 130 S. Ct . at 3227.

Accor di ngl y, t o r esol ve t hi s mot i on i t i s necessar y t o conduct a

hol i st i c anal ysi s of whet her t he 073 pat ent const i t ut es an

abst r act i dea i n l i ght of t he pr ecedent s of Benson, Fl ook,

Di eher , and Bi l ski i t sel f . 5

A. The Supreme Cour t s Abst r act I dea Cases

As par t of t hi s anal ysi s, t he

machi ne or t r ansf or mat i on t est serves as a non- di sposi t i ve

i nvest i gat i ve t ool .

I n t he 1972 case of Benson v. Kappos, t he Cour t i nval i dat ed

a patent t hat cl ai med a method of pr ogr ammi ng a general - purpose

di gi t al comput er t o conver t si gnal s f r om bi nar y- coded deci mal

f or m i nt o pur e bi nar y f or m. Benson, 409 U. S. at 65. The

Benson Cour t hel d t hat t he patent cl ai med not a patent abl e

pr ocess, but an al gor i t hm whi ch const i t ut ed an abst r act i dea.

The concept ual groundi ng of t he cour t s hol di ng was t he

i mper mi ssi bl e br eadt h of t he pr eempt i ve ef f ect of pat ent i ng such

a method. The Cour t noted t hat t he patent woul d whol l y pr e-

5 Bi l ski di r ect s a cour t t o l ook t o t he f act s and hol di ngs ofBenson, Fl ook, and Di eher as gui depost s i n det er mi ni ng whet hera cl ai med pr ocess const i t ut es and i mper mi ssi bl e abst r act i dea.I t f ol l ows t hat Bi l ski i t sel f shoul d al so be consul t ed i n t hesame f ashi on.



12/3612

empt t he mathemat i cal f ormul a [ undergi r di ng t he conver si on of

bi nar y deci mal s t o pur e bi nar y f or m] and i n pr act i cal ef f ect

woul d be a pat ent on t he al gor i t hm i t sel f . I d. at 72. The

Cour t f ur t her emphasi zed t he pr eempt i on concer n i n not i ng that

t he pat ent s pr ocess' cl ai m i s so abst r act and sweepi ng as t o

cover bot h known and unknown uses . . . var y[ i ng] f r om t he

oper at i on of a t r ai n t o ver i f i cat i on of dr i ver s' l i censes t o

r esear chi ng t he l aw books f or pr ecedent s. I d. at 68 ( ci t at i on

omi t t ed) .

I n t he 1978 case of Par ker v. Fl ook, t he Cour t i nval i dat ed

a pat ent t hat cl ai med a new pr ocess f or moni t or i ng cer t ai n

cat al yt i c condi t i ons dur i ng t he oi l r ef i ni ng pr ocess. The

pat ent cl ai med a comput er i mpl ement ed met hod, whi ch was

undergi r ded by a mathemat i cal f ormul a by whi ch moni t ors coul d be

more easi l y al ert ed t o dangerous devel opment s dur i ng t hat

pr ocess . Rel yi ng on i t s hol di ng i n Benson t hat a mat hemat i cal

f or mul a const i t ut ed an abst r act i dea t hat coul d not be pat ent ed,

t he Cour t f r amed t he quest i on i n Fl ook as whether t he

i dent i f i cat i on of a l i mi t ed cat egor y of usef ul , t hough

convent i onal , post - sol ut i on appl i cat i ons of such a f or mul a makes

[ a pat ent ed] met hod el i gi bl e f or pat ent pr ot ect i on. Fl ook, 437

U. S. at 585. The Cour t answer ed i n t he negat i ve. I t hel d t hat

post - sol ut i on appl i cat i on of an abst r act i dea t o a par t i cul ar

f i el d coul d not save a patent t hat f undament al l y cl ai med an



13/36

13

abst r act i dea. I d. Even t hough t he pat ent at i ssue i n Fl ook

was mor e l i mi t ed i n i t s preempt i ve ef f ect t han t hat i n Benson

gi ven t hat i t cl ai med a pr ocess whi ch was r est r i ct ed t o a

par t i cul ar i ndust r i al r ef i ni ng pr ocess unl i ke t he bi nar y deci mal

conver si on met hod of gener al appl i cabi l i t y i n Benson, t he Cour t

f ound t hat t he onl y cont r i but i on made by t he pat ent s cl ai med

i nvent i on was a mat hemat i cal al gor i t hm, whi ch const i t ut ed an

abst r act i dea.

The Fl ook Cour t al so made cl ear t hat comput er

i mpl ement at i on of t he cl ai med pr ocess di d not save i t f r om

i nval i di t y due t o abst r act ness. The Cour t i nval i dat ed t hat

pat ent even t hough i t , l i ke t he cl ai m i n Benson, was l i mi t ed i n

bei ng pr edomi nat el y t i ed t o a comput er i n i t s appl i cat i on.

Recogni zi ng t hat t he abst r act of di scl osur e makes i t cl ear t hat

t he f or mul a i s pr i mar i l y usef ul f or comput er i zed cal cul at i ons,

t he Cour t nonet hel ess i nval i dat ed t he pat ent s cl ai ms. I d. at

586.

I n the 1981 case of Di amond v. Di eher , t he Cour t out l i ned

t he out er l i mi t s of t he abst r act i dea i n t he cour se of uphol di ng

a pat ent t hat cl ai med a pr ocess f or cur i ng synt het i c rubber .

450 U. S. at 184. Ther e, as i n Benson and Fl ook, t he chal l enged

cl ai m t ook t he f or m of a mat hemat i cal f or mul a. The Cour t

di st i ngui shed t he cl ai m at i ssue, however , under t he gui di ng

pr i nci pl e t hat t he pr eempt i ve ef f ect of pat ent i ng t he pr ocess i n



14/3614

Di eher was mor e l i mi t ed. The Cour t r easoned t hat , unl i ke t he

pat ent i n Fl ook - whi ch cl ai med a f or mul a f or comput i ng an

al ar m l i mi t whi ch coul d be of gener al appl i cabi l i t y - - t he

pr ocess cl ai med i n Di eher was of r est r i ct ed appl i cabi l i t y t o t he

r ubber cur i ng i ndust r y. I d. at 186- 87.

The Di eher Cour t al so made t wo obser vat i ons about t he

abst r act i dea except i on t o Sect i on 101 pat ent abi l i t y. Fi r st , i t

st r essed t hat i n a pr ocess cl ai m . . . a new combi nat i on of

st eps i n a pr ocess may be patent abl e even though al l t he

const i t uent s of t he combi nat i on were wel l known and i n common

use bef or e t he combi nat i on was made. I d. at 188. Second, i t

emphasi zed that al t hough Benson and Fl ook had i nval i dated

pr ocess pat ent s t i ed t o comput er s, a cl ai m dr awn t o subj ect

mat t er otherwi se st atut ory [ under Sect i on 101] does not become

nonst at ut or y si mpl y because i t uses a mat hemat i cal f or mul a,

comput er pr ogr am, or di gi t al comput er . I d. at 187. I nst ead,

i n det er mi ni ng t he el i gi bi l i t y of [ a] cl ai med pr ocess f or

pat ent pr ot ect i on under 101, [ any] cl ai ms must be consi dered

as a whol e t o det er mi ne whet her t hei r appl i cat i ons t o a

par t i cul ar cont ext pr ovi des mat er i al of addi t i onal val ue beyond

t he abst r act i dea i t sel f . I d. at 188. The Cour t st r essed,

however , t hat t hi s hol i st i c anal ysi s cannot be ci r cumvent ed by

at t empt i ng t o l i mi t t he use of t he f or mul a t o a par t i cul ar

t echnol ogi cal envi r onment . I d. at 191.



15/36

15

Most r ecent l y, t he Supr eme Cour t addr essed t he abst r act

i dea except i on i n t he 2010 case Bi l ski v Kappos. I n Bi l ski , t he

Cour t i nval i dat ed as an abst r act i dea a busi ness met hod pat ent

t hat cl ai med a gener al method f or hedgi ng r i sk i n t he ener gy

commodi t i es mar ket . Bi l ski , 130 S. Ct . at 3223. The

i ndependent cl ai m i n t he Bi l ski pat ent r ead as f ol l ows:

( a) i ni t i at i ng a ser i es of t r ansact i ons bet ween sai dcommodi t y provi der and consumers of sai d commodi t y wher ei nsai d consumers pur chase sai d commodi t y at a f i xed ratebased upon hi st or i cal aver ages, sai d f i xed r at ecor r espondi ng t o a r i sk posi t i on of sai d consumer s;( b) i dent i f yi ng mar ket par t i ci pant s f or sai d commodi t yhavi ng a count er - r i sk posi t i on t o sai d consumer s; and( c) i ni t i at i ng a ser i es of t r ansact i ons bet ween sai dcommodi t y pr ovi der and sai d market par t i ci pant s at a secondf i xed r at e such t hat sai d ser i es of mar ket par t i ci pantt r ansact i ons bal ances t he r i sk posi t i on of sai d ser i es ofconsumer t r ansact i ons.

I d. at 3223- 24. Rej ect i ng t he Feder al Ci r cui t s appl i cat i on of

t he machi ne or t r ansf or mat i on t est as t he excl usi ve test f or

det er mi ni ng Sect i on 101 pat ent abi l i t y, t he Cour t r el i ed on

Benson, Fl ook, and Di eher t o hol d t hat t he pat ent cl ai med an

abst r act i dea and was i nval i d. The Cour t hel d t hat [ t ] he

concept of hedgi ng . . . i s an unpat ent abl e abst r act i dea, j ust

l i ke t he al gor i t hms at i ssue i n Benson and Fl ook. I d. at 3231.

The Court al so grounded i t s r easoni ng i n concer n about

pr eempt i on. I t expl ai ned t hat [ a] l l owi ng pet i t i oner s t o pat ent

r i sk hedgi ng woul d pr e- empt use of t hi s appr oach i n al l f i el ds,



16/3616

and woul d ef f ect i vel y gr ant a monopol y over an abst r act i dea.

I d. at 3231.

B. The Feder al Ci r cui t s Appl i cat i on of Bi l skiAf t er Bi l ski , t he Feder al Ci r cui t wor ked t o pr ovi de f ur t her

def i ni t i on t o Bi l ski s somewhat open- ended test f or det er mi ni ng

pr ocess pat ent el i gi bi l i t y under Sect i on 101. I n May 2013, t he

Feder al Ci r cui t at t empt ed, unsuccessf ul l y, t o pr ovi de def i ni t i ve

gui dance t o l ower cour t s adj udi cat i ng a cl ai m of i mper mi ssi bl e

abst r act i ness i n i t s opi ni on i n CLS Bank I nt ' l v. Al i ce Cor p.

Pt y. Lt d. , 717 F. 3d 1269 ( Fed. Ci r . 2013) ( her ei naf t er Al i ce) .

The pat ent hol der i n Al i ce cl ai med a comput er i zed met hod of

hedgi ng r i sk i n a t wo- par t y deal by enl i st i ng a mut ual l y t r ust ed

t hi r d par t y t o ensur e that each par t y compl i es wi t h i t s payment

obl i gat i on dur i ng t he per i od between t he maki ng of t he deal and

t he act ual cl osi ng. The pat ent hol der had f our pat ent s. The

f i r st t wo wer e met hod pat ent s - whi ch wer e di r ect ed t o a

met hod ( i . e. , pr ocess) , whi l e t he cl ai ms of t he [ ot her t wo]

Pat ent s [ wer e] di r ect ed t o a [ comput er i zed] syst em or pr oduct

t o i mpl ement t hat met hod. CLS Bank I nt ' l v. Al i ce Cor p. Pt y.

Lt d. , 768 F. Supp. 2d 221, 223 ( D. D. C. 2011) . The di st r i ct

cour t had hel d that both the method patent s and the syst em

pat ent s cl ai med abst r act i deas and wer e i nval i d under t he

machi ne or t r ansf ormat i on t est and t he Supr eme Cour t s

pr ecedent s i n Benson, Fl ook, Di eher , and Bi l ski . I d. The



17/36

17

Feder al Ci r cui t i ssued a per - cur i um opi ni on, wher ei n a maj or i t y

of t he cour t af f i r med t he i nval i dat i on of t he met hod pat ent s on

t he gr ound t hat t hey cl ai med an abst r act i dea whi l e di vi di ng 5- 5

on t he quest i on whet her t he syst em pat ent s cl ai med pat ent

el i gi bl e subj ect mat t er . Al i ce, 717 F. 3d at 1273.

The Feder al Ci r cui t s r easoni ng f r act ured i nto f i ve

separ at e opi ni ons. One j udge not ed t hat

Al t hough a maj or i t y of t he j udges on t he cour t agr ee t hatt he met hod cl ai ms do not r eci t e pat ent el i gi bl e subj ectmat t er , no maj or i t y of t hose j udges agr ees as t o t he l egalr at i onal e f or t hat concl usi on. Accor di ngl y, t hough much i spubl i shed t oday di scussi ng t he pr oper appr oach t o thepat ent el i gi bi l i t y i nqui r y, not hi ng sai d t oday beyond ourj udgment has t he wei ght of precedent .

Al i ce, 717 F. 3d 1269, 1292 n. 1 ( Fed. Ci r . 2013) . Thr ee

di f f er ent t est s emer ge f r om t he f i ve opi ni ons. Fi r st , J udge

Lour i e s opi ni on woul d ask a cour t t o eval uat e to what extent

t he cl ai m avoi ds br oad pr eempt i on by cont ai ni ng addi t i onal

subst ant i ve l i mi t at i ons t hat nar r ow, conf i ne, or ot her wi se t i e

down t he cl ai m so t hat , i n pr act i cal t er ms, i t does not cover

t he f ul l abstr act i dea i t sel f , i d. at 1282, wi t h par t i cul ar

r ef er ence t o whet her t he cl ai m cont ai ns an i nvent i ve concept .

. . a genui ne human cont r i but i on t o t he cl ai med subj ect mat t er .

I d. at 1283. Second, Chi ef J udge Rader pr oposed an i nqui r y l ess

f ocused on pr eempt i on t han J udge Laur i e s, st at i ng t hat t he

r el evant i nqui r y must be whet her a cl ai m i ncl udes meani ngf ul

l i mi t at i ons rest r i ct i ng i t t o an appl i cat i on, r at her t han mer el y



18/3618

an abst r act i dea. I d. at 1299 ( emphasi s added) . A cl ai m may

be pr emi sed on an abst r act i dea - - t he quest i on f or pat ent

el i gi bi l i t y i s whet her t he cl ai m cont ai ns l i mi t at i ons t hat

meani ngf ul l y t i e t hat i dea t o a concret e r eal i t y or act ual

appl i cat i on of t hat i dea. I d. at 1299- 1300. Fi nal l y, J udge

Newman, wr i t i ng onl y f or her sel f , woul d eschew t he

abst r act ness Sect i on 101 i nqui r y al t oget her and hol d t hat i f a

cl ai m f el l i nt o t he enumer at ed cat egor i es of usef ul ar t s, t hat

t he i nqui r y shoul d pr oceed t o appl y t he l aws of novel t y,

ut i l i t y, pr i or ar t , obvi ousness, descri pt i on, enabl ement , and

speci f i ci t y . . . [ obvi at i ng t he] need f or an al l - pur pose

def i ni t i on of abst r actness or pr eempt i on, as her oi cal l y

at t empt ed. I d. at 1322.

Whi l e Al i ce di d not pr oduce cont r ol l i ng r easoni ng, i t s

hol di ng t hat t he met hod cl ai m pat ent s wer e i nval i d has

pr ecedent i al wei ght and must be f ol l owed by l ower cour t s t o t he

extent t hat t he f act s r egar di ng any pat ent s chal l enged i n t hose

cour t s ar e si mi l ar . Mor eover , whi l e t he Al i ce j udges di sagr eed

on t he f undament al methodol ogy to appl y i n adj udi cat i ng patent

i nval i dat i on quest i ons of t hi s t ype and pr oduced no bi ndi ng

method, gui dance can be drawn f r om any reasoni ng t o t he ext ent

t hat i t s i nt er pr et at i on of t he Supr eme Cour t s cases i n t hi s

ar ea i s per suasi ve.



19/36

19

C. Appl yi ng t he Supr eme Cour t s and Feder al Ci r cui t spr ecedent s t o t he 073 pat ent

Appl yi ng t he pr i nci pl es of Benson, Fl ook, Di eher , and

Bi l ski , al ong wi t h what gui dance can be wr ought f r om Al i ce, i t

i s evi dent t hat Cl ai m 1 of t he 073 pat ent cl ai ms an abst r act

i dea and does not qual i f y as a process under Sect i on 101. The

073 pat ent cl ai ms t he i dea of bi l at er al and mul t i l at er al

matchmaki ng usi ng a comput er i n t he cont ext of a f i nanci al

t r ansact i on or an ent er pr i se. I t i s pr eempt i ve i n t he br oadest

sense. And i t s onl y r eal l i mi t at i on - t he use of a comput er - -

const i t ut es mer e post - sol ut i on appl i cat i on of an abst r act i dea

t o a common cont ext . The patent must be i nval i dated under any

of t he above descr i bed Supr eme Cour t pr ecedent s as wel l as under

ei t her t he J udge Laur i e or t he J udge Rader met hodol ogy i n Al i ce.

1. Pr eempt i onThe f i r st common t hread i n t he above cases i s concer n t hat

a pat ent ed pr ocess wi l l pr eempt al l appl i cat i ons of an abst r act

i dea. Concer n about br oad pr eempt i on undergi r ds t he Supr eme

Cour t s pr ecedent of pat ent i nval i dat i on i n Benson, Fl ook, and

Bi l ski and t he Feder al Ci r cui t s i nval i dat i on of t he met hod

cl ai ms i n Al i ce. Appl yi ng t hat pr i nci pl e her e, i t i s cl ear t hat

t he 073 pat ent cannot st and. Put si mpl y, t he pat ent pr eempt s

t he use of a comput er t o f aci l i t at e mat chmaki ng. I t s pr eempt i ve

br eadt h i s enor mous. Al l owi ng [ a pat ent hol der ] t o pat ent [ a



20/3620

br oad pr ocess] woul d pr e- empt use of t hi s appr oach i n al l

f i el ds, and woul d ef f ect i vel y gr ant a monopol y over an abst r act

i dea. Bi l ski , 130 S. Ct . at 3231. Per mi t t i ng Lumen Vi ew t hi s

l evel of pr eempt i on woul d be out of st ep wi t h t he bal ance the

patent syst emhas st r uck between pr omot i ng i nnovat i on and

al l owi ng t he wi despr ead use of new and pr oduct i ve i nvent i ons and

di scover i es.

The preempt i ve r each of Cl ai m 1 of t he 073 pat ent ext ends

at l east as f ar as t hat of t he i nval i dat ed pat ent cl ai ms i n any

of t he above descr i bed pr ecedent s. For exampl e, i n Benson, t he

Supr eme Cour t l ament ed t hat t he cl ai med pr ocess of conver t i ng

bi nary deci mal s was so abst r act and sweepi ng as t o cover both

known and unknown uses . . . var y[ i ng] f r omt he oper at i on of a

t r ai n t o ver i f i cat i on of dr i ver s' l i censes t o r esear chi ng t he

l aw books f or precedent s. Her e, as ther e, per mi t t i ng t he

pat ent i ng of bi l at er al or mul t i l at er al mat chmaki ng usi ng a

comput er woul d al so cover known and unknown uses, var yi ng f r om

t he mat chi ng of onl i ne dat er s t o secur i t i es t r ader s l ooki ng f or

t r adi ng par t ner s. And whi l e t he i nval i dat ed Fl ook pat ent was at

l east l i mi t ed t o pr eempt i ng t he use of an al er t system i n t he

oi l r ef i ni ng i ndust r y, Cl ai m 1 of t he 073 pat ent pr eempt s t he

use of comput er assi st ed matchmaki ng i n t he cont ext of any

t r ansact i on or ent er pr i se. Unl i ke t he pr ocess hel d pat ent abl e

i n Di eher , whi ch was di r ect ed t o a speci f i c appl i cat i on ( r ubber



21/36

21

cur i ng) , t he 073 pat ent i s a pat ent of gener al appl i cabi l i t y.

Even t he i nval i dat ed Bi l ski pat ent whi ch t he Supr eme Cour t

admoni shi ngl y descr i bed as pur por t i ng t o pat ent bot h t he

concept of hedgi ng r i sk and t he appl i cat i on of t hat concept t o

ener gy mar ket s, Bi l ski , 130 S. Ct . at 3229, at l east speci f i ed a

market where i t s preempt i ve ef f ect woul d presumabl y be

pr edomi nant l y f el t .

2. Absence of meani ngf ul l i mi t at i onsA second common t hr ead i n t he above cases i nval i dat i ng

pat ent cl ai ms f or abst r act ness i s t hat t he pat ent s l acked

suf f i ci ent l i mi t at i ons t o di r ect t he cl ai m t o a par t i cul ar ar ea.

Thi s wel l est abl i shed not i on i s embodi ed i n J udge Rader s

pr oposed t est i n Al i ce t hat a cl ai m must have meani ngf ul

l i mi t at i ons rest r i ct i ng i t t o an appl i cat i on, r at her t han mer el y

an abst r act i dea. Al i ce, 717 F. 3d at 1299. The meani ngf ul

l i mi t at i ons i nqui r y i s pr esent i n al l of t he above descr i bed

Supr eme Cour t cases, most sal i ent l y i n Di eher , wher e the

l i mi t at i on of an al gor i t hm t o t he oi l pr ocessi ng f i el d saved i t

f r om i nval i dat i on on t he gr ound of abst r act ness. Di eher , 450

U. S. at 188. Cl ai m 1 of t he 073 pat ent cont ai ns no meani ngf ul

l i mi t at i on on convent i onal mat chmaki ng at al l . I t i s di r ect ed

t o f i nanci al t r ansact i ons and t he oper at i on of ent er pr i ses. And

as i s descr i bed bel ow, t he appl i cat i on of mat chmaki ng t o a



22/36


23/36

23

i nval i dat i on. I ndeed, al l of t he pr ocess pat ent s i nval i dat ed i n

Benson, Fl ook, Bi l ski , and Al i ce wer e i mpl ement ed by a comput er .

The Federal Ci r cui t s most r ecent t est f or det er mi ni ng t he

r el evance of a comput er el ement of a cl ai m i n t he Sect i on 101

anal ysi s i s cont ext speci f i c. To sal vage an ot her wi se pat ent -

i nel i gi bl e pr ocess, a comput er must be i nt egr al t o t he cl ai med

i nvent i on, f aci l i t at i ng t he pr ocess i n a way that a per son

maki ng cal cul at i ons or comput at i ons coul d not . Bancor p Servs.

L. L. C. v. Sun Li f e Assur . Co. of Canada ( U. S. ) , L. L. C. , 687 F. 3d

1266, 1278 ( Fed. Ci r . 2012) ; accor d Si RF Tech. , I nc. v. I nt ' l

Tr ade Comm' n, 601 F. 3d 1319, 1333 ( Fed. Ci r . 2010) ( f or t he

addi t i on of a machi ne t o i mpose a meani ngf ul l i mi t on t he scope

of a cl ai m, i t must pl ay a si gni f i cant par t i n per mi t t i ng t he

cl ai med met hod t o be per f or med, r at her t han f unct i on sol el y as

an obvi ous mechani sm f or per mi t t i ng a sol ut i on t o be achi eved

mor e qui ckl y, i . e. , t hr ough t he ut i l i zat i on of a comput er f or

per f or mi ng cal cul at i ons. ) . Cl ai m 1 of t he 073 pat ent r eci t es

t he pr ocess of a comput er i zed r et r i eval of pr ef er ence dat a f r om

t wo or mor e par t i es and t he comput at i on of a cl oseness of f i t

t est t o mat ch par t i es. The st eps i n t he Cl ai m ar e: 1)

r et r i evi ng t he submi t t ed pr ef er ence dat a; 2) anal yzi ng t he dat a

t o comput e a cl oseness of f i t concl usi on; and 3) pr ovi di ng a

l i st . These pr ocesses can be per f ormed by a human absent a

comput er . The comput er el ement of t he cl ai m f unct i on[ s] sol el y



24/3624

as an obvi ous mechani sm f or permi t t i ng [ matchmaki ng] t o be

achi eved mor e qui ckl y. I d.

A sl i ght l y di f f er ent t est f or t he r el evance of t he

comput er component t o an otherwi se abst r act i dea cl ai m was set

f or t h by J udge Rader i n her opi ni on i n Al i ce. J udge Rader

posi t ed t hat :

The key t o t hi s i nqui r y i s whet her t he cl ai ms t i e t heot her wi se abst r act i dea t o a speci f i c way of doi ngsomet hi ng wi t h a comput er , or a speci f i c comput er f or doi ngsomet hi ng; i f so, t hey l i kel y wi l l be pat ent el i gi bl e,unl i ke cl ai ms di r ect ed t o not hi ng mor e than t he i dea ofdoi ng t hat t hi ng on a comput er .

Al i ce, 717 F. 3d at 1302. Under t hi s t est as wel l , t he comput er

el ement of Cl ai m 1 does not save t he cl ai m f r om i nval i dat i on.

Nei t her Cl ai m 1 nor t he speci f i cat i on i n t he 073 pat ent

di scl oses any speci al way of pr ogr ammi ng a comput er t o achi eve

t he matchmaki ng f unct i on. I n other words, t he 073 patent does

not di scl ose a speci f i c met hod of usi ng a comput er t o execut e

t he abst r act i dea of mat chmaki ng, i t onl y cl ai ms t he abst r act

concept of comput er i zed matchmaki ng i n a busi ness or ent erpr i se

cont ext .

D. The Machi ne or Tr ansf or mat i on TestAs par t of t he hol i st i c anal ysi s r equi r ed by Bi l ski , t he

machi ne or t r ansf or mat i on t est serves as a usef ul non-

di sposi t i ve i nvest i gat i ve t ool . Bi l ski , 130 S. Ct . at 3227.

Under t he machi ne or t r ansf or mat i on t est , [ a] cl ai med pr ocess



25/36

25

i s sur el y pat ent - el i gi bl e under 101 i f : ( 1) i t i s t i ed t o a

par t i cul ar machi ne or appar at us, or ( 2) i t t r ansf or ms a

par t i cul ar ar t i cl e i nt o a di f f er ent st at e or t hi ng. I d. at

3224 ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) . Cl ai m 1 of t he 073 pat ent f ai l s bot h

pr ongs of t he machi ne or t r ansf or mat i on t est and t her ef or e i t s

appl i cat i on conf i r ms t he concl usi on, pr edi cat ed on t he above

anal ysi s of Supr eme Cour t pr ecedent , t hat i t cannot st and.

1. Whet her Cl ai m 1 of t he 073 pat ent i s t i ed t o apar t i cul ar machi ne or apparat us

Cl ai m 1 r eci t es [ a] comput er - i mpl ement ed met hod f or

f aci l i t at i ng eval uat i on, wher ei n di gi t al st or age medi um[ s]

are used to hol d i nput t ed pr ef erence data and a comput er

per f or ms mul t i l at er al anal yses of each par t y s pref er ence dat a

t o comput e a cl oseness of f i t val ue. Thi s cl ai m f ai l s t he

machi ne pr ong of t he machi ne or t r ansf ormat i on t est f or t wo

r easons. Fi r st , t he mat chmaki ng f unct i ons cl ai med do not

r equi r e a comput er t o be per f or med. [ M] erel y cl ai mi ng a

sof t war e i mpl ement at i on of a pur el y ment al pr ocess t hat coul d

otherwi se be per f ormed wi t hout t he use of a comput er does not

sat i sf y t he machi ne pr ong of t he machi ne- or - t r ansf or mat i on

t est . Cyber sour ce Cor p. v. Ret ai l Deci si ons, I nc. , 654 F. 3d

1366, 1375 ( Fed. Ci r . 2011) . The cor e of t he cl ai med pr ocess i n

Cl ai m 1 of t he 073 pat ent i s t he abst r act i dea of bi l at er al and

mul t i l at er al mat chmaki ng. Mat chmaki ng by havi ng par t i es decl ar e



26/3626

pr ef er ence dat a and deci di ng on good f i t s i s a pr ocess as ol d as

humani t y i t sel f . Addi ng a comput er t o t he mi x wi t hout showi ng

how t he comput er adds s i gni f i cant val ue const i t ut es mer e post

sol ut i on act i vi t y. Fl ook, 437 U. S. at 590. And as Bi l ski

makes cl ear , t he pr ohi bi t i on agai nst pat ent i ng abst r act i deas

cannot be ci r cumvent ed by at t empt i ng t o l i mi t t he use of t he

f or mul a t o a par t i cul ar t echnol ogi cal envi r onment or addi ng

i nsi gni f i cant post- sol ut i on act i vi t y. Bi l ski , 130 S. Ct . at

3230 ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

The Feder al Ci r cui t addressed a si mi l ar cl ai m i n whi ch a

comput er i zed pr ocess coul d be per f ormed by a human al one i n

Cyber sour ce, 654 F. 3d at 1366. Ther e, t he cl ai m at i ssue

r eci t ed a met hod of det ect i ng f r aud i n cr edi t car d t r ansact i ons

t hat were conduct ed over t he I nt er net . The pat ent hol der

cl ai med t hat t he patent was t i ed t o a machi ne or apparatus

because the cl ai med pr ocess r equi r ed t he I nt er net i n or der t o be

per f or med. I d. at 1370. The di st r i ct cour t r ej ect ed t hat

not i on, and t he Feder al Ci r cui t af f i r med on t he gr ound t hat t he

I nt er net was not r equi r ed t o per f or m t he cor e f unct i on i n t he

cl ai m. The Feder al Ci r cui t not ed t hat whi l e [ t he cl ai m]

descr i bes a met hod of anal yzi ng dat a r egar di ng I nt er net cr edi t

car d t r ansact i ons, not hi ng i n [ t he cl ai m] r equi r es an i nf r i nger

t o use t he I nt er net t o obt ai n t hat dat a. Cyber Sour ce, 654 F. 3d

at 1370. Si mi l ar l y, her e, t he use of a comput er t o per f or m a



27/36

27

pr ocess humans can per f or m i ndependent l y i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o

f ul f i l l t he machi ne pr ong of t he machi ne or t r ansf or mat i on

test .

Second, Cl ai m 1 of t he 073 pat ent f ai l s t he machi ne pr ong

of t he t est because i t i s not t i ed t o a par t i cul ar machi ne or

appar at us, as t he t est r equi r es. Lumen Vi ew ar gues t hat t he

cl ai med pr ocess r equi r es a speci f i cal l y pr ogr ammed comput er

such t hat i t sat i sf i es t he machi ne pr ong of t he t est . Thi s

cont ent i on i s unavai l i ng. Mer el y di r ect i ng a comput er t o

per f or m a f unct i on does not t r ansf or m t he comput er i nt o a

speci al i zed comput er . Such a pr i nci pl e woul d l ead t o t he absur d

r esul t of al l owi ng t he pat ent i ng t he comput er i zed use of even

t he most basi c abst r act i deas. Gi ven t he ubi qui t y of comput er s

i n modern l i f e, adopt i ng such a pr i nci pl e woul d have enormous

pr eempt i ve ef f ect . Not hi ng i n Sect i on 101 or t he pr ecedent s

i nt er pr et i ng i t al l ow a par t y t o monopol i ze t he bui l di ng bl ocks

of i nnovat i on i n a comput er i zed wor l d. Moreover , as not ed

above, al l of t he pr ocess pat ent s i nval i dat ed i n Benson, Fl ook,

Bi l ski , and Al i ce were i mpl ement ed by a comput er . I n none of

t hose cases was t her e any i nt i mat i on t hat t he pat ent s coul d be

saved by vi r t ue of t he not i on t hat t he comput ers used were

somehow speci al i zed by vi r t ue of per f or mi ng t he abst r act

pr ocesses at i ssue. Consequent l y, t o t he extent t hat t he

machi ne pr ong ser ves as an i nvest i gat i ve t ool i t cut s



28/3628

agai nst hol di ng t hat t he 073 pat ent cl ai ms Sect i on 101 el i gi bl e

subj ect mat t er .

2. Whet her Cl ai m 1 of t he 073 pat ent t r ansf or ms a

par t i cul ar ar t i cl e i nt o a di f f er ent st at e or t hi ng

I f a pr ocess i s not t i ed t o a par t i cul ar machi ne t hen t he

machi ne or t r ansf or mat i on t est next asks whet her t he pr ocess

pr oduces a t r ansf or mat i on and r educt i on of an ar t i cl e t o a

di f f er ent s t at e or t hi ng. Benson, 409 U. S. at 70. Lumen Vi ew

ar gues t hat pul l i ng pr ef er ence dat a and cr eat i ng a l i st der i ved

f r om a cl oseness- of - f i t anal ysi s i s t r ansf or mat i ve such t hat i t

f i t s t hi s pr ong. Thi s cont ent i on i s unavai l i ng.

The t r ansf or mat i on prong or i gi nal l y cont empl at ed physi cal

t r ansf or mat i on of a physi cal ent i t y t hr ough a gi ven pr ocess. By

way of ear l y exampl e, i n Di eher , t he pat ent whi ch t he Cour t

uphel d under t he t r ansf ormat i on pr ong cl ai med a pr ocess t hat

physi cal l y t r ansf or med r aw, uncur ed r ubber i nt o mol ded, cur ed

r ubber pr oduct s. See Di eher , 450 U. S. at 187. Lat er , a

doct r i ne emer ged al l owi ng t he t r ansf or mat i on t est t o appl y t o

mani pul at i ons of non- physi cal dat a. The Feder al Ci r cui t

expl ai ned that :

The r aw mat er i al s of many i nf or mat i on- age processes . . . ar eel ect r oni c si gnal s and el ect r oni cal l y- mani pul at ed dat a. . .[ r ai si ng t he quest i on of ] [ w] hi ch, i f any, of t hese pr ocessesqual i f y as a t r ansf or mat i on or r educt i on of an ar t i cl e i nt o adi f f er ent st at e or t hi ng const i t ut i ng pat ent - el i gi bl e subj ectmat t er?



29/36

29

Bi l ski I , 545 F. 3d at 962. The Feder al Ci r cui t dr ew a l i ne i n

Bi l ski I i n hol di ng t hat t he dat a mani pul at ed must t r ansf or m

ei t her a physi cal obj ect or subst ance, or an el ect r oni c si gnal

r epr esent at i ve of any physi cal obj ect or subst ance. I d. at 964

Appl yi ng t hat t est t o t he f acts at i ssue i n Bi l ski I , t he

Feder al Ci r cui t decl ar ed t hat a comput er i zed r i sk hedgi ng

pr ocess whi ch t r ansf or med publ i c or pr i vat e l egal obl i gat i ons

or r el at i onshi ps, [ or ] busi ness r i sks di d not f ul f i l l t he

t r ansf or mat i on pr ong:

Pur por t ed t r ansf or mat i ons or mani pul at i ons si mpl y of publ i cor pr i vat e l egal obl i gat i ons or r el at i onshi ps, busi ness,r i sks, or ot her such abst r act i ons cannot meet t he[ t r ansf or mat i on] t est because they ar e not physi cal obj ect sor subst ances, and t hey ar e not r epr esent at i ve of physi calobj ect s or subst ances.

I d. at 963.

Here, t he pr ef er ences t hat ar e mani pul at ed i n t he cl ai med

matchmaki ng pr ocess do not r epr esent physi cal obj ect s or

subst ances. They ar e i napposi t e abst r act i ons f or pur poses of

t he t est . Consequent l y, t he t r ansf or mat i on pr ong of t he t est

al so cut s i n f avor of i nval i dat i ng t he 073 pat ent .

I I . The Dependent Cl ai ms of t he 073 pat ent ar e al so I nval i dThe ei ght dependent cl ai ms of t he 073 pat ent r el y on Cl ai m

1 s cl ai m of t he comput er i zed mat chmaki ng pr ocess. The cl ai ms

si mpl y add br oad, non- val ue added l i mi t at i ons t o Cl ai m 1 s

pr ocess of comput er i zed matchmaki ng. They are i nval i d f or t wo



30/3630

r easons. Fi r st , al l of t he dependent cl ai ms expr essl y depend on

t he i nval i d Cl ai m 1. Cl ai ms 2, 3, 4, 8, and 9 ar e al l di scl osed

as met hod[ s] accor di ng t o cl ai m 1. Cl ai ms 5 and 6 ar e

di scl osed as met hod[ s] accor di ng t o cl ai m 4 ( whi ch i s

dependent on t he i nval i d Cl ai m 1) . And cl ai m 7 i s di scl osed as

a met hod accor di ng t o cl ai m 6 ( whi ch i s dependent on Cl ai m 4,

whi ch i n t ur n i s dependent on t he i nval i d Cl ai m 1) . Wi t hout

Cl ai m 1, t he cl ai ms are no l onger gr ounded i n anythi ng and ar e

i ncoher ent .

Second, none of t he l i mi t at i ons mat er i al l y l i mi t Cl ai m 1

such t hat t hey coul d sur vi ve i ndependent l y even i f Cl ai m 1 wer e

not i nval i dat ed. Cl ai m 2 i s si mpl y t he concept of addi ng a

cl oseness of f i t t est t o Cl ai m 1. Cl ai m 3 adds t he abst r act

i dea of usi ng dat a f r om ext er nal co- eval uat or s i n t he pr ocess.

Cl ai ms 4 and 6 cl ai m t he abst r act i dea of assi gni ng a val ue t o

t he pr ef er ences i nput t ed. Cl ai ms 5 and 7 cl ai m t he equal l y

abst r act i dea of not r eveal i ng t hat val ue t o t he par t i es i n t he

mat chmaki ng pr ocess. Fi nal l y, Cl ai ms 8 and 9 cl ai m t he

qui nt essent i al l y commonpl ace i dea of usi ng t he i nt er net . I t i s

cl ear t hat none of t hese l i mi t at i ons cr eat e a pr ocess t hat can

sur vi ve under t he f or egoi ng t est s. None of t hem ar e t i ed t o a

par t i cul ar machi ne nor do t hey t r ansf or m anythi ng. And t hey ar e

al l even mor e abst r act t han t he pr ocesses i nval i dat ed i n Benson,

Fl ook, Bi l ski , and Al i ce.



31/36

31

The dependent cl ai ms of t he 073 pat ent ar e anal ogous t o

t he dependent cl ai ms i nval i dat ed by the Supr eme Cour t i n Bi l ski

f ol l owi ng t he Cour t s i nval i dat i on of t he under l i ng i ndependent

cl ai m t her e. See Bi l ski , 130 S. Ct . at 3231. Af t er

i nval i dat i ng t he i ndependent cl ai m of t he pr ocess of r i sk

hedgi ng i n t he commodi t i es cont ext , t he Bi l ski Cour t i nval i dat ed

t he dependent cl ai ms on t he gr ound that t he r emai ni ng cl ai ms

ar e br oad exampl es of how hedgi ng can be used i n commodi t i es and

ener gy mar ket s. I d. The Cour t expl ai ned t hat [ t ] t hese

[ dependent ] cl ai ms at t empt t o pat ent t he use of t he abst r act

i dea of hedgi ng r i sk i n t he ener gy mar ket and t hen i nst r uct t he

use of wel l - known r andom anal ysi s t echni ques t o hel p est abl i sh

some of t he i nput s i nt o t he equat i on. I d.

The dependent cl ai ms i n t he 073 pat ent add si mi l ar l y

l i t t l e val ue t o t hose i nval i dat ed i n Bi l ski . Li ke t he dependent

cl ai ms i n Bi l ski , t he dependent cl ai ms her e mer el y add t o t he

unpat ent abl e abst r act i dea of mat chmaki ng t he wel l - known . . .

anal ysi s t echni que[ s] of : i ncor por at i ng cl oseness of f i t

anal ysi s ( Cl ai m 2) ; addi ng dat a f r om ext er nal co- eval uat or s

( Cl ai m 3) ; assi gni ng a val ue f i gur e t o t he pr ef er ence dat a

i nput t ed ( Cl ai ms 4 and 6) ; hi di ng t hat val ue f i gur e f r om

par t i ci pant s ( Cl ai ms 5 and 7) ; and usi ng t he I nt er net ( Cl ai ms 8

and 9) . Not abl y, al t hough Fi ndt hebest devot ed a sect i on i n i t s



32/3632

i ni t i al mot i on as t o why Cl ai ms 2- 9 wer e i nval i d, Lumen Vi ew

f ai l ed t o r espond wi t h any def ense of t hose cl ai ms i ndi vi dual l y.

I I I . Lumen Vi ew s Ar gument s t hat t he Mot i on i s Pr ocedur al l yI mpr oper

Lumen Vi ew cont ends t hat a mot i on t o i nval i date a patent

based on Sect i on 101 i s pr ematur e at t he mot i on t o di smi ss st age

f or t hr ee r easons. Fi r st , Lumen Vi ew ar gues t hat t he onl y

r el evant i nqui r y i s whet her i t compl i ed wi t h t he For m 18 - - an

i l l ust r at i ve pl eadi ng f or m f or pat ent cases i n t he Feder al Rul es

of Ci vi l Procedur e. Second, Lumen Vi ew ar gues that t he cl ear

and convi nci ng evi dence st andar d f or pat ent i nval i dat i on means

t hat a pat ent usual l y shoul d not be i nval i dat ed at t he pl eadi ngs

st age. And t hi r d, Lumen Vi ew somewhat cont r adi ct or i l y argues

bot h t hat t hi s mot i on shoul d not be deci ded bef or e cl ai m

const r uct i on has occur r ed and that t he Cour t shoul d adopt Lumen

Vi ew s pr of f er ed cl ai m const r uct i on i n deci di ng t hi s mot i on now.

Lumen Vi ew s For m 18 argument can be di sposed of qui ckl y.

Lumen Vi ew conf uses t he f act t hat compl i ance wi t h Form 18 may

i mmuni ze a compl ai nt f r om an at t ack on t he suf f i ci ency of t he

det ai l s pl ed6

6 Under t he pl eadi ng st andar ds enunci at ed i n Bel l At l ant i c Cor p.v. Twombl y, 550 U. S. 544 ( 2007) , and Ashcrof t v. I qbal , 556 U. S.662, ( 2009) .

wi t h t he not i on t hat compl i ance wi t h For m 18

pr event s a l egal l y mer i t l ess cl ai m f r om bei ng di smi ssed on t he

pl eadi ngs. Lumen Vi ew r el i es on t he Feder al Ci r cui t s st at ement



33/36

33

i n I n r e Bi l l of Ladi ng Tr ansmi ssi on & Pr ocessi ng Sys. Pat ent

Li t i g. , 681 F. 3d 1323 ( Fed. Ci r . 2012) , t hat [ a] s l ong as t he

compl ai nt i n quest i on cont ai ns suf f i ci ent f actual al l egat i ons t o

meet t he r equi r ement s of For m 18, t he compl ai nt has suf f i ci ent l y

pl ed di r ect i nf r i ngement . I d. at 1336. But t he r eason t hat

compl i ance wi t h For m 18 was suf f i ci ent t o save t hose cl ai ms f r om

di smi ssal at t he pl eadi ng st age was t hat t he pat ent - i nval i dat i on

ar gument s al l f ocus[ ed] on whether t he amended compl ai nt s'

al l egat i ons of di r ect i nf r i ngement cont ai n[ ed] suf f i ci ent

f act ual det ai l t o wi t hst and at t ack under Twombl y and I qbal .

I d. at 1335. I n ot her wor ds, compl i ance wi t h For m 18 i s usual l y

suf f i ci ent t o def eat an ar gument t hat a pl eadi ng i s

i nsuf f i ci ent l y det ai l ed. But compl i ance wi t h a pl eadi ng f or m

cannot , of cour se, pr ove t hat a cl ai m i s l egal l y mer i t or i ous.

Second, Lumen Vi ew argues t hat t he cl ear and convi nci ng

evi dence st andard under whi ch a patent i nval i dat i on mot i on must

be adj udi cat ed makes r esol ut i on of t hi s mot i on i mpr oper at t hi s

pr ocedural st age. But as Lumen Vi ew concedes, a mot i on t o

i nval i dat e a pat ent on t he pl eadi ngs i s not pr ecl uded, at t hi s

st age. I t i s t r ue t hat i t wi l l be r ar e t hat a pat ent

i nf r i ngement sui t can be di smi ssed at t he pl eadi ng st age f or

l ack of pat ent abl e subj ect mat t er . . . because ever y i ssued

pat ent i s presumed t o have been i ssued pr oper l y, absent cl ear

and convi nci ng evi dence t o t he cont r ar y. Ul t r amer ci al , I nc. v.



34/3634

Hul u, LLC, 722 F. 3d 1335, 1338 ( Fed. Ci r . 2013) . But r ar e does

not mean never . Whether a patent i s val i d under Sect i on 101 i s

a pur e quest i on of l aw. And when t he onl y pl ausi bl e r eadi ng of

t he pat ent must be t hat t her e i s cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence

of i nel i gi bi l i t y t he pat ent must be i nval i dat ed at t he pl eadi ng

st age. I d. As descr i bed i n t he f or egoi ng, whet her t he 073

pat ent i s addr essed t o Sect i on 101 i nel i gi bl e subj ect mat t er i s

not a cl ose quest i on. I t i s evi dent by cl ear and convi nci ng

evi dence t hat t he pat ent i s i nval i d.

Fi nal l y, Lumen Vi ew obj ect s t o t he f act t hat t hi s mot i on

was br ought bef or e cl ai m const r uct i on has occur r ed. At t he same

t i me, Lumen Vi ew argues t hat s i nce t he par t i es have al r eady

f i l ed t hei r st at ement of [ cl ai m const r uct i on] t hi s Cour t shoul d

adopt Lumen Vi ew s pr of f er ed const r uct i ons i n consi der i ng t hi s

mot i on. Fi ndt hebest ur ges t hat t hi s mot i on be r esol ved absent

any cl ai m const r uct i on, and i n t he al t er nat i ve i t consent s t o

use t he const r uct i on of t he cl ai ms submi t t ed by Lumen Vi ew f or

pur poses of t hi s mot i on.

Whi l e cl ai m const r uct i on may somet i mes be hel pf ul i n

r esol vi ng a Sect i on 101 mot i on wher e det ai l ed expl i cat i on of t he

cl ai ms i n a pat ent woul d r eveal mat er i al l egal i ssues, t he

Feder al Ci r cui t has sai d t hat conduct i ng a cl ai m const r uct i on

anal ysi s bef or e addr essi ng 101 i s not r equi r ed. Thi s i s

because el i gi bi l i t y i s a coar se gauge of t he sui t abi l i t y of



35/36

35

br oad subj ect mat t er cat egor i es f or pat ent pr ot ect i on, . . .

[ and t her ef or e] cl ai m const r uct i on may not al ways be necessar y

f or a 101 anal ysi s. I d. at 1339. I n suppor t of i t s hol di ng

t hat cl ai m const r uct i on i s not r equi r ed pr i or t o a Sect i on 101

anal ysi s, t he Feder al Ci r cui t has ci t ed [ Bi l ski , 130 S. Ct . at

3225] , not i ng t hat t he Supr eme Cour t f [ ound] subj ect mat t er

i nel i gi bl e f or pat ent pr ot ecti on wi t hout cl ai m const r ucti on.

Bancor p Ser vs. , 687 F. 3d at 1273.

Thi s mot i on t urns on t he quest i on of whet her one

i ndependent cl ai m i n t he 073 pat ent cl ai ms a pr ocess t hat i s

i mper mi ssi bl y abst r act . The cl ai med pr ocess el ement s of Cl ai m 1

ar e st r ai ght f or war d. No component s ar e opaque such t hat cl ai m

const r uct i on woul d be necessar y t o f l ush out i t s cont our s.

[ T] he quest i on of el i gi bl e subj ect mat t er must be det er mi ned on

a cl ai m- by- cl ai m basi s. Const r ui ng ever y asser t ed cl ai m and

t hen conduct i ng a 101 anal ysi s may not be a wi se use of

j udi ci al r esour ces. Ul t r amer ci al , 722 F. 3d at 1340. Her e, t he

Sect i on 101 i nqui r y encompasses onl y br oad subj ect mat t er

cat egor i es and cl ai m const r uct i on i s not necessar y t o r eveal

any mat er i al l egal i ssues and woul d not be a wi se use of

j udi ci al r esour ces. 7

7 I n any event , havi ng exami ned Lumen Vi ew s pr oposed cl ai mconst r uct i on, not hi ng cont ai ned i n t hese submi ssi ons woul d al t ert he out come of t hi s mot i on. I n f act , Lumen Vi ew ur ged i n i t scl ai m const r ucti on br i ef t hat al l of t he cl ai m t er ms whi ch i t

I d.



36/36

CONCLUSI ON

Cl ai m 1 of t he 073 pat ent cl ai ms an abst r act i dea, whi ch

i s pat ent i nel i gi bl e subj ect mat t er under Sect i on 101 of t he

codi f i ed Pat ent Act . The dependent cl ai ms ar e i nval i d as wel l .

Fi ndt hebest s Sept ember 24, 2013 mot i on f or j udgment on t he

pl eadi ngs i s gr ant ed. The Cl er k of Cour t shal l ent er j udgment

f or t he def endant and cl ose t he case.

Dat ed: New York, New YorkNovember 22, 2013

__________________________________DENI SE COTE

Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct J udge

sought t o be const r ued by t he Cour t be const r ued accor di ng t o


Lumen View Technology v. FindTheBest

Documents

Transcript of Lumen View Technology v. FindTheBest