United States: CAFC Hands Down Significant § 101 Decision In Bascom Global Internet

In Bascom Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, Bascom Global sued for infringement of US Patent No. 5,987,606, titled "Method And System For Content Filtering Information Retrieved From An Internet Computer Network," November 16, 1999 (the '606 patent). The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), and the motion for dismissal was granted on the ground that the claims of the '606 patent are ineligible as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In what could become a highly impactful decision, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court's order dismissing the complaint.

This is only the third time that the Federal Circuit has held software claims patent eligible since the Supreme Court's Alice decision (the first two were DDR and Enfish). Although these three cases have some common themes, they provide different paths to patent eligibility. Of the three decisions, Bascom may be the most generally applicable. Judge Chen wrote for the court, joined by Judge O'Malley. Judge Newman concurred, writing separately on her views of how to harmonize litigation on patentability and eligibility.

Background

The '606 patent describes and claims a system for filtering Internet content. The patent describes its filtering system as a novel advance over prior art computer filters, in that no one had previously provided customized filters at a remote server. The claimed filtering system is located on a remote ISP server that associates each network account with (1) one or more filtering schemes and (2) at least one set of filtering elements from a plurality of sets of filtering elements, thereby allowing individual network accounts to customize the filtering of Internet traffic associated with the account. For example, one filtering scheme could be a word-screening type filtering scheme, and one set of filtering elements (from a plurality of sets) could be a master list of disallowed words or phrases together with an individual list of words, phrases or rules.

Figure 1 of the patent is reproduced below. This is described as a single-user configuration embodying the invention. In the single-user configuration, local client 10 is connected to ISP server 100. The connection 20 is described as typically being a dial-up asynchronous telephone line but could be any of a number of known means, such as a cable connection or a continuous direct connection. The ISP server is described as including at least one filter scheme 121 and a database 120 of a plurality of sets of filtering elements associated with individual end users.

Claim 1 is an example of the claims at issue:

  1. A content filtering system for filtering content retrieved from an Internet computer network by individual controlled access network accounts, said filtering system comprising:

a local client computer generating network access requests for said individual controlled access network accounts;

at least one filtering scheme;

a plurality of sets of logical filtering elements;

and a remote ISP server coupled to said client computer and said Internet computer network, said ISP server associating each said network account to at least one filtering scheme and at least one set of filtering elements, said ISP server further receiving said network access requests from said client computer and executing said associated filtering scheme utilizing said associated set of logical filtering elements.

In its motion to dismiss, the defendant applied the Supreme Court's decision in Alice[1] and argued that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of "filtering content," "filtering Internet content" or "determining who gets to see what," each of which is a well-known "method of organizing human activity" like the intermediated settlement concept that was held to be an abstract idea in Alice. Bascom responded by arguing that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they address a problem arising in the realm of computer networks, and provide a solution entirely rooted in computer technology, similar to the claims at issue in DDR Holdings.[2]

Bascom characterized the recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions invalidating claims under § 101 as focusing on claims that are directed to a longstanding fundamental practice that exists independent of computer technology, and asserted that its claims are different because filtering Internet content was not longstanding or fundamental at the time of the invention and is not independent of the Internet. In addition, Bascom argued that, even if the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the inventive concept is found in the ordered combination of the limitations: a "special ISP server that receives requests for Internet content, which the ISP server then associates with a particular user and a particular filtering scheme and elements."

The district court found that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of "filtering content" because "content provided on the Internet is not fundamentally different from content observed, read, and interacted with through other mediums like books, magazines, television, or movies." In its search for an "inventive concept," the district court first determined that no individual limitation was inventive because each limitation, in isolation, was a well-known, generic computer component or a standard filtering mechanism. The district court then determined that the limitations in combination were not inventive either because "[f]iltering software, apparently composed of filtering schemes and filtering elements, was well-known in the prior art" and "using ISP servers to filter content was well-known to practitioners." The district court also noted that the absence of specific structure for the generic computer components raised the likelihood that such claims could preempt every filtering scheme under the sun.

Federal Circuit Opinion

In the Opinion entered by Judge Chen, the court commented that software-related patents have been found eligible under both steps of the Alice two-step test. The court found that the claims were not sufficiently limited to avoid the "abstract idea" moniker under step one, but were nonetheless eligible under step two.

Step 1

Under step one, the court noted that a particular improvement to a database system patent was deemed eligible under step one in Enfish,[3] a case in which the court found claim language reciting the invention's specific improvements to help its determination in step one that the invention was directed to those specific improvements in computer technology.

The court also recognized that, in other cases involving computer-related claims, there may be close calls about how to characterize what the claims are directed to. In such cases, an analysis of whether there are arguably concrete improvements in the recited computer technology could take place under step two. That is, some inventions' basic thrust might more easily be understood as directed to an abstract idea, but under step two it might become clear that the specific improvements in the recited computer technology go beyond well-understood, routine, conventional activities and render the invention patent-eligible. The court took this step-two path in DDR in stating, "When the limitations of the . . . claims are taken together as an ordered combination, the claims recite an invention that is not merely the routine or conventional use of the Internet."[4]

The court noted that claim 1 of the '606 patent is directed to a content filtering system for filtering content retrieved from an Internet computer network, and claim 22 similarly is directed to an ISP server for filtering content. The court also noted that the specification reinforces the Internet-centric nature of the invention by describing the invention as relating "generally to a method and system for filtering Internet content." Bascom had argued that the claims are directed to something narrower than the concept of "filtering," i.e., the specific implementation of filtering content set forth in the claim limitations. Specifically, Bascom argued that claim 1 is directed to the more specific problem of providing Internet-content filtering in a manner that can be customized for the person attempting to access such content while avoiding the need for local servers or computers to perform such filtering and while being less susceptible to circumvention by the user, and claim 23 is directed to the particular problem of structuring a filtering scheme not just to be effective but also to make user-level customization administrable as users are added. The court recognized that it sometimes incorporates claim limitations into its articulation of the idea to which a claim is directed, citing Enfish, 2016 WL 2756255 at *6 (relying on a step of an algorithm corresponding to a means-plus-function limitation in defining the idea of a claim for step-one purposes). The court distinguished this case from Enfish, stating that the claims in Enfish were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities whereas here the claims and their specific limitations "do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a non-abstract idea." The court thus deferred consideration of the specific claim limitations' narrowing effect for step two and the search for an "inventive concept."

Step 2

The court noted that the "inventive concept" may arise in one or more of the individual claim limitations or in the ordered combination of the limitations, and that an inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention must be significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and cannot simply be an instruction to implement or apply the abstract idea on a computer.

The district court had taken each limitation individually and noted that the claimed "local client computer," "remote ISP server," "Internet computer network" and "controlled access network accounts" were well-known generic computer components. The district court also analyzed the limitations collectively, and held that filtering software, composed of filtering schemes and filtering elements, and using ISP servers to filter content, were well-known at the time the application was filed. The district court thus concluded that the limitations, considered individually or as an ordered combination, are no more than routine additional steps involving generic computer components and the Internet, which interact in well-known ways to accomplish the abstract idea of filtering Internet content.

Inventive Concept

The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the limitations of the claims, taken individually, recite generic computer, network and Internet components, none of which is inventive by itself. However, the court disagreed with the district court's analysis of the ordered combination of limitations. The court characterized the district court's analysis as being similar to an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103, except lacking an explanation of a reason to combine the limitations as claimed. The court said that the inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. According to the court, an inventive concept can be found in the nonconventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces. The court characterized the inventive concept described and claimed in the '606 patent as the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user, which allegedly gives the filtering tool both the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a filter on the ISP server. Based on the limited record before it, the court held that this specific method of filtering Internet content cannot be said, as a matter of law, to have been conventional or generic.

The court went on to say that the claims do not merely recite the abstract idea of filtering content along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet, and they do not preempt all ways of filtering content on the Internet. According to the court, the claims instead recite a specific, discrete implementation of the abstract idea of filtering content. The court noted that filtering content on the Internet was already a known concept, and the patent describes how its particular arrangement of elements is a technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering such content.[5]

The court also noted that its recent case law on step two of the Alice test supports the patent-eligibility of Bascom's claims. The court favorably compared the present case to DDR, noting that it held that DDR's patent claimed a technical solution to a problem unique to the Internet – websites instantly losing views upon the click of a link, which would send the viewer across cyberspace to another company's website. The court said that the claimed invention in DDR solved the problem in a particular, technical way by sending the viewer to a hybrid webpage that combined visual elements of the first website with the desired content from the second website that the viewer wished to access. The court said that DDR's patent was engineered in the context of retaining potential customers, and claimed a technical way to satisfy an existing problem for website hosts and viewers. Similarly, the court noted, the invention in the '606 patent is engineered in the context of filtering content, and the '606 patent claims a technology-based solution to filter content on the Internet that overcomes existing problems with other Internet filtering systems. The court characterized Bascom's solution, taking a prior art filter solution (one-size-fits-all filter at the ISP server) and making it more dynamic and efficient (providing individualized filtering at the ISP server), as representing a software-based invention that improves the performance of the computer system itself.

Conclusion

This case shows the value of being able to describe the invention as a technological solution to a problem rooted in technology. Moreover, even where the claimed invention is a combination of known elements, patent-eligibility can be based on a showing that the claims recite an ordered combination or configuration of elements designed to solve the specific technological problem. Structural claim limitations can also be helpful in avoiding overbreadth and the risk of preemption.

In this case, the court saw an "inventive concept" in the allegedly novel configuration of known elements. The court worked from the DDR framework on the second Alice step (familiar to Judge Chen, since he also wrote DDR), viewing the claims here as a technology-based solution. It seems safe to observe from Bascom (as well as Enfish and DDR) that, on one hand, the court is looking for a claim rooted in technology, but on the other hand the court is looking for a claim that is narrow in some respects so as to avoid "preemption," a specter which continues to haunt the patent law. The court seems favorably disposed toward claims offering a particular way of implementing a general idea. The breadth/preemption idea is always woven into the background of § 101 cases, but the court has not done a good job of explaining the test for overbreadth in § 101. To some degree, these considerations rise and fall together – a narrower claim is going to look more like a specific technological solution.

One way to read the three cases finding eligibility is that in "clear" cases like Enfish, the analysis can end at step one. But Enfish's claim had the benefit of the means-plus-function construction incorporating a particular algorithm. In more difficult cases like DDR or Bascom, the step two analysis is necessary – even if there is not a clearly established abstract idea.

Footnotes

[1] Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)
[2] DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
[3] Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 2016 WL 2756255, at *8 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016)
[4] DDR, 773 F.3d at 1259
[5] According to the court, prior art filters were either susceptible to hacking and dependent on local hardware and software, or confined to an inflexible one size-fits-all scheme. The court accepted Bascom's assertion that the inventors recognized there could be a filter implementation versatile enough that it could be adapted to many different users' preferences while also installed remotely in a single location. Thus, construed in favor of the non-movant – Bascom – the claims were deemed to be more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea, but rather could be read to improve an existing technological process.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions