Buysafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc.

Decision Date03 September 2014
Docket NumberNo. 2013–1575.,2013–1575.
Citation765 F.3d 1350
PartiesBUYSAFE, INC., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. GOOGLE, INC., Defendant–Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Stephen M. Hankins, Schiff Hardin LLP, of San Francisco, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was Alison L. Maddeford. Of counsel on the brief were Brian D. Siff and James E. Hanft, of New York, N.Y., and Donald E. Stout, Antonelli, Terry, Stout & Kraus, LLP, of Arlington, VA.

Andrew J. Pincus, Mayer Brown, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Brian A. Rosenthal, Ann Marie Duffy, and Paul W. Hughes. Of counsel on the brief were A. John P. Mancini and Allison Levine Stillman, of New York, N.Y.

Before TARANTO and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.*

TARANTO, Circuit Judge.

This case involves claims directed to creating familiar commercial arrangements by use of computers and networks. The district court held the asserted claims invalid because they cover subject matter ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 964 F.Supp.2d 331 (D.Del.2013). Under the approach to section 101 affirmed by the Supreme Court in the recent decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 189 L.Ed.2d 296 (2014), the district court's holding is correct.

Background

U.S. Patent No. 7,644,019, owned by buySAFE, Inc., claims methods and machine-readable media encoded to perform steps for guaranteeing a party's performance of its online transaction. In 2011, buySAFE sued Google, Inc., in the District of Delaware, alleging that Google infringes claims 1, 14, 39, and 44 of the '019 patent. Google moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the asserted claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Claim 1 is an independent method claim, with claim 14 dependent on it. Claim 39 is an independent claim to a computer-readable medium encoded with instructions to carry out the Claim 1 method, with claim 44 a dependent claim bearing the same relation to claim 39 as claim 14 does to claim 1. The parties agreed that the analysis of claims 1 and 14 would control the analysis of claims 39 and 44, so we discuss only the method claims here.

Claim 1 recites a method in which (1) a computer operated by the provider of a safe transaction service receives a request for a performance guarantee for an “online commercial transaction”; (2) the computer processes the request by underwriting the requesting party in order to provide the transaction guarantee service; and (3) the computer offers, via a “computer network,” a transaction guaranty that binds to the transaction upon the closing of the transaction. Specifically:

1. A method, comprising:

receiving, by at least one computer application program running on a computer of a safe transaction service provider, a request from a first party for obtaining a transaction performance guaranty service with respect to an online commercial transaction following closing of the online commercial transaction;

processing, by at least one computer application program running on the safe transaction service provider computer, the request by underwriting the first party in order to provide the transaction performance guaranty service to the first party,

wherein the computer of the safe transaction service provider offers, via a computer network, the transaction performance guaranty service that binds a transaction performance guaranty to the online commercial transaction involving the first party to guarantee the performance of the first party following closing of the online commercial transaction.

Claim 14 narrows the claim 1 method to a guaranty “in one form of: a surety bond; a specialized bank guaranty; a specialized insurance policy; and a safe transaction guaranty.”

The district court granted Google's motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that the asserted claims fall outside section 101. The court concluded that the patent “describes a well-known, and widely-understood concept—a third party guarantee of a sales transaction—and then applied that concept using conventional computer technology and the Internet.” buySAFE, 964 F.Supp.2d at 335–36. It makes no difference, the court added, that the guarantee of the underlying transaction attaches only when that transaction closes. Id. at 336. Moreover, the claimed computer “is used only for processing—a basic function of any general purpose computer.” Id. Finally, the court explained, the claims “do not require specific programming” and are not “tied to any particular machine.” Id. In these circumstances, the court ruled, the claims are outside section 101.

We have jurisdiction over buySAFE's appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). We review the grant of judgment on the pleadings de novo. See Allergan, Inc. v. Athena Cosmetics, Inc., 640 F.3d 1377, 1380 (Fed.Cir.2011); M.R. v. Ridley School Dist., 744 F.3d 112, 117 (3d Cir.2014).

Discussion

The Supreme Court has “interpreted § 101 and its predecessors ... for more than 150 years” to ‘contain[ ] an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.’ Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2354, quoting Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 2107, 2116, 186 L.Ed.2d 124 (2013) (further internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Under that interpretation, laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas, no matter how [g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” Myriad, 133 S.Ct. at 2117, are outside what the statute means by “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,” 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2357; Myriad, 133 S.Ct. at 2116, 2117.

In identifying the three types of excluded matter, the Court has explained that the underlying “concern” is ‘that patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use’ of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2354, quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., ––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1301, 182 L.Ed.2d 321 (2012). The Court has invoked the concern to justify and inform understanding of, but not to identify section 101 exclusions beyond, the three recognized categories.

In defining the excluded categories, the Court has ruled that the exclusion applies if a claim involves a natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea, even if the particular natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea at issue is narrow. Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1303. The Court in Mayo rejected the contention that the very narrow scope of the natural law at issue was a reason to find patent eligibility, explaining the point with reference to both natural laws and one kind of abstract idea, namely, mathematical concepts.

[O]ur cases have not distinguished among different laws of nature according to whether or not the principles they embody are sufficiently narrow. See, e.g., [Parker v.] Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 98 S.Ct. 2522, 57 L.Ed.2d 451 [ (1978) ] (holding narrow mathematical formula unpatentable). And this is understandable. Courts and judges are not institutionally well suited to making the kinds of judgments needed to distinguish among different laws of nature. And so the cases have endorsed a bright-line prohibition against patenting laws of nature, mathematical formulas and the like, which serves as a somewhat more easily administered proxy for the underlying ‘building-block’ concern.

Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1303.

Based on the three implicit exclusions, the Court has created a framework for identifying claims that fall outside section 101. Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355; Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1296–97. A claim that directly reads on matter in the three identified categories is outside section 101. Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1293. But the provision also excludes the subject matter of certain claims that by their terms read on a human-made physical thing (“machine, manufacture, or composition of matter”) or a human-controlled series of physical acts (“process”) rather than laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. Such a claim falls outside section 101 if (a) it is “directed to” matter in one of the three excluded categories and (b) “the additional elements” do not supply an “inventive concept” in the physical realm of things and acts—a “new and useful application” of the ineligible matter in the physical realm—that ensures that the patent is on something “significantly more than” the ineligible matter itself. Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355, 2357 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294, 1299, 1300. This two-stage inquiry requires examination of claim elements “both individually and ‘as an ordered combination.’ Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355.

Several decisions of the Court have involved the “abstract idea” category, which is at issue here. Two aspects of those decisions are important for present purposes: what type of matter the Court has held to come within the category of “abstract idea”; and what invocations of a computer in a claim that involves such an abstract idea are insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application of such an idea.

As to the first question: The relevant Supreme Court cases are those which find an abstract idea in certain arrangements involving contractual relations, which are intangible entities. Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 177 L.Ed.2d 792 (2010), involved a method of entering into contracts to hedge risk in commodity prices, and Alice involved methods and systems for “exchanging financial obligations between two parties using a third-party intermediary to mitigate settlement risk,” Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2356. More narrowly,the Court in both cases relied on the fact that the contractual relations at issue constituted “a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce.” Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611, 130 S.Ct. 3218; see Alice, 134...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1667 cases
  • Carfax, Inc. v. Red Mountain Techs., Case No. 1:14–cv–01590–GBL–IDD.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 30 Marzo 2015
    ......v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 56 F.Supp.3d 813, 816 (E.D.Va.2014) (citing buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed.Cir.2014) ) ("Accordingly, a court may invalidate patent claims directed to non-eligible subject matter on ......
  • Device Enhancement LLC. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • 17 Mayo 2016
    ........ In sum, the 399 patent's claims are unlike the claims in Alice , Ultramercial, buySAFE, Accenture , and Bancorp that were found to be "directed to" little more than an abstract concept. To be sure, the '399 patent's claims do not ...Id. at 1258–59 (citing Alice , 134 S.Ct. at 2359 ; Ultramercial , 772 F.3d 709, 714–16 (Fed.Cir.2014) ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. , 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.Cir.2014) ; Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc. , 728 F.3d 1336, 1344–45 (Fed.Cir.2013) ; ......
  • Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co., Case No. 16 C 6097
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 23 Mayo 2018
    ......Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ; creating a "transaction performance guaranty" over an unspecified network, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ; "offering media content in exchange for viewing an advertisement," Ultramercial, Inc. ......
  • Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • 1 Noviembre 2016
    ......at 1302 (holding that even “narrow laws that may have limited applications” “nonetheless implicate this concern” of pre-emption); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. , 765 F.3d 1350, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 firm's commentaries
  • Software Patents: History And Strategies (Pt. I – History)
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 24 Febrero 2016
    ...N.A., 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Planet Bingo, LLC v VKGS LLC, 576 Fed. Appx. 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc.......
  • Patent Eligibility Under Alice: Reliance On Lack Of Routine Or Conventional Use
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 5 Marzo 2015
    ...ideas. Id. at 1256; see also Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21633 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Accenture Global Servs. v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life A......
  • Federal Circuit Rejects Section 101 Challenge To Software Patent
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 30 Diciembre 2014
    ...scrutiny. For one, several of the Federal Circuit's post-Alice § 101 decisions , particularly Ultramercial and buySAFE v. Google, 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014), involved patents that claimed specific solutions to problems that were unique to the Internet. What is more, as Judge Mayer noted......
  • Tracking The Evolving Abstract Idea Doctrine: How Courts Have Applied The Two-Part Test For Computer-Implemented Inventions Post-Alice
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 18 Marzo 2015
    ...1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 Fed App'x 1005, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2014). buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 8Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo B......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Chapter §3.02 Processes Within §101
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Mueller on Patent Law Volume I: Patentability and Validity Title CHAPTER 3 Patent-Eligible Subject Matter
    • Invalid date
    ...under 35 U.S.C. §101 because claims were "directed to no more than a patent-ineligible abstract idea"); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 3, 2014) (Taranto, J.) (affirming district court's judgment that claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,644,019, reciting methods and ma......
  • Case Comments
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association New Matter: Intellectual Property Law (CLA) No. 40-1, March 2015
    • Invalid date
    ...not make the idea non-abstract for purposes of § 101 subject matter. A finding of invalidity was affirmed. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 112 U.S.P.Q.2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014).PATENTS - SUBJECT MATTER An eleven-step method claim for actively selecting advertisements in return ......
  • Mcle Self-study Article
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association New Matter: Intellectual Property Law (CLA) No. 40-1, March 2015
    • Invalid date
    ...1289 (2012).6. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355.7. Id. at 2356.8. Id.9. Id. at 2356-2357.10. Id. at 2357.11. Id.12. Id. at 2359-2360.13. 765 F.3d 1350, (Fed. Cir. 2014).14. Id. at 1354 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357) (italics in original).15. Id. at 1355. Similarly, in Content Extraction......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT