Federal Circuit Rejects Section 101 Challenge to User Interface
For the second time this month, the Federal Circuit has sided with patent owners on the issue of patent eligibility under Section 101. Russ August & Kabat partner Benjamin Wang had the winning argument for Core Wireless.
January 25, 2018 at 07:58 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
Benjamin Wang of Russ August & Kabat
Patents on user interfaces have been a frequent casualty of the U.S. Supreme Court's Alice patent eligibility ruling. But on Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found one it liked.
A three-judge panel ruled that Core Wireless S.a.r.l.'s application summary window was sufficiently specific and limited to pass muster. LG Electronics had argued that Core Wireless was claiming the abstract idea of an index, but Judge Kimberly Moore shot that down. ”These limitations disclose a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user, rather than using conventional user interface methods to display a generic index on a computer,” Moore wrote in Core Wireless v. LG Electronics.
The court also backed Judge Rodney Gilstrap's claim construction and jury findings of infringement and validity. The case now returns to the Eastern District of Texas for a damages trial.
Russ August & Kabat partner Benjamin Wang argued the appeal for Core Wireless, which is a subsidiary of Canadian IP holding company Conversant Intellectual Property Management. Sidley Austin partner Carter Phillips argued for LG.
➤➤ Get IP news and commentary straight to your in-box with Scott Graham's email briefing, Skilled in the Art. Learn more and sign up here.
The idea behind the 8,713,476 patent was originally developed in 2000 for Symbian Ltd., a joint project of Nokia, Ericsson and other big wireless players. The patented UI lets users access “a snapshot” of their applications' key data and functionality at the top level of the device, without having to click through a series of drop-down menus, according to Core Wireless. LG's infringing product is the notification panel that users can pull down from the phone's status bar to directly access voicemails, texts, sound levels and the like.
In Alice v. CLS Bank, the Supreme Court ruled in 2014 that using generic computer technology to implement fundamental economic concepts or organizing principles does not make them patentable. That's taken a toll on a broad range of software, including user interfaces. In Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One, for example, the Federal Circuit invalidated a patent on an “interactive interface,” saying that customizing information and presenting it to users based on particular characteristics is an unpatentable abstract idea.
Core Wireless is the second Section 101 decision this month in which the Federal Circuit has sided with patent owners. It seems to build on the small handful of other decisions over the last two years that have upheld patent eligibility for computer-implemented technology. “Like the improved systems claimed in Enfish, Thales, Visual Memory, and Finjan, these claims recite a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices,” Moore wrote.
Judges Kathleen O'Malley and Evan Wallach concurred. Wallach wrote separately to take issue with one of the claim constructions.
Kayvan Noroozi of Noroozi PC, who helped brief Core Wireless' appeal, said the '476 patent is a computer-specific solution to a computer-specific problem—accessing apps without having to scroll down through never-ending drop-down menus.
Noroozi said he was pleased the Federal Circuit declined LG's invitation to define the invention at a high level of abstraction. “Increasingly we're seeing the Federal Circuit criticize that approach,” he said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBig Law Practice Leaders 'Bullish' That Second Trump Presidency Will Be Good for Business
3 minute readWhere May Vacancies for Trump Arise? These GOP-Appointed Circuit Judges Qualify for Senior Status
Big Law Leaders, Dealmakers Optimistic About M&A Deal Flow Under Trump, With Caveats
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250