Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.
Decision Date | 01 August 2016 |
Docket Number | 2015-1778 |
Citation | 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739,830 F.3d 1350 |
Parties | Electric Power Group, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Alstom S.A., Alstom Grid, Inc., Psymetrix, Ltd., Alstom Limited, Defendants-Appellees |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Syed A. Hasan, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Glendale, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by David A. Dillard, Kyle Wayne Kellar.
Angela Dawn Mitchell, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Kansas City, MO, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by Peter Emanuel Strand, Christine A. Guastello ; Jamie Kitano, San Francisco, CA.
Before Taranto, Bryson, and Stoll, Circuit Judges.
This case involves the eligibility for patenting, under 35 U.S.C. § 101, of certain claims of three of Electric Power Group, LLC's patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,233,843 ; 8,060,259 ; and 8,401,710. Those patents describe and claim systems and methods for performing real-time performance monitoring of an electric power grid by collecting data from multiple data sources, analyzing the data, and displaying the results. See '710 patent, col. 1, lines 27–30; id. , col. 2, lines 43–49. Electric Power Group sued Alstom S.A., Alstom Grid, Inc., Psymetrix Limited, and Alstom Limited (collectively, Alstom) in the Central District of California, alleging infringement of various claims of the three patents. The district court granted Alstom summary judgment that the subject matter of Electric Power Group's asserted patent claims fails the tests for patent eligibility under governing precedent.
We affirm. Though lengthy and numerous, the claims do not go beyond requiring the collection, analysis, and display of available information in a particular field, stating those functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over conventional computer and network technology. The claims, defining a desirable information-based result and not limited to inventive means of achieving the result, fail under § 101.
Claim 12 of the '710 patent is representative of the asserted claims.1 It reads:
'710 patent, col. 30, line 66, through col. 31, line 50. The district court treated claim 12 as representative, and so may we. On appeal, Electric Power Group's opening brief neither argues for the validity of any other claim if claim 12 is invalid nor presents any meaningful argument for the distinctive significance of any claim limitations other than those included in claim 12.
On Alstom's motion for summary judgment, the district court held that the asserted claims do not define subject matter that is eligible for patenting under § 101. The court concluded that the claims are directed to “the abstract idea of monitoring and analyzing data from disparate sources.” J.A. 27. The court then determined that the asserted claims lack an inventive concept in the application of that abstract idea, observing in particular that the “most significant additional limitations ... are those that limit the claim [s] to monitoring and analyzing data in the context of electric power grids.” J.A. 28.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). We review the district court's grant of summary judgment of ineligibility de novo. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. , 822 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Section 101 provides that “[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The provision, however, “contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l , ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2354, 189 L.Ed.2d 296 (2014). The Supreme Court, setting up a two-stage framework, has held that a claim falls outside § 101 where (1) it is “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept, i.e. , a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea, and (2), if so, the particular elements of the claim, considered “both individually and ‘as an ordered combination,’ ” do not add enough to “ ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. at 2355 ; see Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc. , ––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1297–98, 182 L.Ed.2d 321 (2012).
The Supreme Court's formulation makes clear that the first-stage filter is a meaningful one, sometimes ending the § 101 inquiry. Alice , 134 S.Ct. at 2355 ; see Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc. , No. 2015–1570, 827 F.3d 1042, 1050–51, 2016 WL 3606624, at *6 (Fed. Cir. July 5, 2016) ; Enfish , 822 F.3d at 1335. At the same time, the two stages are plainly related: not only do many of our opinions make clear that the two stages involve overlapping scrutiny of the content of the claims, e.g. , TLI Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig. , 823 F.3d 607, 611–15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ; Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C. , 818 F.3d 1369, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016), but we have noted that there can be close questions about when the inquiry should proceed from the first stage to the second, Enfish , 822 F.3d at 1339 ; see Rapid Litig. , 827 F.3d at 1050–52, 2016 WL 3606624, at *6–7 ( ); Bascom Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC , No. 2015–1763, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348–49, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2016). Reflecting those points, we have described the first-stage inquiry as looking at the “focus” of the claims, their “ ‘character as a whole,’ ” and the second-stage inquiry (where reached) as looking more precisely at what the claim elements add—specifically, whether, in the Supreme Court's terms, they identify an “ ‘inventive concept’ ” in the application of the ineligible matter to which (by assumption at stage two) the claim is directed. See Enfish , 822 F.3d at 1335–36 ; Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc. , 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ; cf. Bascom , 827 F.3d at 1348, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5 (“basic thrust”).
The claims in this case fall into a familiar class of claims “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept. The focus of the asserted claims, as illustrated by claim 12 quoted above, is on collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. We need not define the outer limits of “abstract idea,” or at this stage exclude the possibility that any particular inventive means are to be found somewhere in the claims, to conclude that these claims focus on an abstract idea—and hence require stage-two analysis under § 101.
Information as such is an intangible. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp. , 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12, 127 S.Ct. 1746, 167 L.Ed.2d 737 (2007) ; Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc. , 340 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See , e.g. , Internet Patents , 790 F.3d at 1349 ; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ; Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n , 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Zillow Grp., Inc.
...See Univ. of Fla. , 916 F.3d at 1368 ; Interval Licensing , 896 F.3d at 1344-45 ; Intell. Ventures , 850 F.3d at 1342 ; Elec. Power , 830 F.3d at 1356. As the Federal Circuit has repeatedly instructed, "a claim that merely describes an ‘effect or result dissociated from any method by which ......
-
Ocado Innovation, Ltd. v. AutoStore AS
...idea because it recites steps that can be performed in the human mind, with the aid of pen and paper. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("In a similar vein, we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by ma......
-
TQ Delta, LLC v. 2Wire, Inc.
...delay on bonded transceivers with different data rates. Moreover, these claims are distinct from those in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. , 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed Cir. 2016). The claims there were directed to "a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, the......
-
In re Biogen 755 Patent Litig.
...of the claims." Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc. , 896 F.3d 1335, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A. , 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ). The Supreme Court has explained that laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable be......
-
Claims Directed To Detecting Natural Phenomena Using Conventional Techniques Are Patent Ineligible
...can be close questions about when the inquiry should proceed from the first stage to the second. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted).' The Court concluded that 'our precedent rejects CareDx's effort to draw a bright line between the......
-
Patent Claims To A System For Drilling A Well Found Ineligible Under 35 U.S.C. ' 101
...Cir. 2014); In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation, 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 3. 2019 Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong Two Addressing Step 2A, Prong Two, the PTAB found that the additional elements in claim o......
-
Claims To A Spread-Spectrum Method For Sending Data Over A Communications Channel Are Patent Ineligible Under Section 101
...of data are abstract absent additional features, because 'information as such is an intangible.' Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. The court pointed out that representative claim 4 was directed to the manipulation of information: 'It requires 'storing' spe......
-
Claims To A Spread-Spectrum Method For Sending Data Over A Communications Channel Are Patent Ineligible Under Section 101
...of data are abstract absent additional features, because 'information as such is an intangible.' Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. The court pointed out that representative claim 4 was directed to the manipulation of information: 'It requires 'storing' spe......
-
A New Frontier in Patent Bar Ethics?
...(2014). 2. Statistics were generated based on raw data provided by LexisNexis ® PatentAdvisorSM. 3. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 4. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019). Published in Landslide ® maga......
-
An Interview with Li-Hsien (Lily) Rin-Laures
...(2014). 2. Statistics were generated based on raw data provided by LexisNexis ® PatentAdvisorSM. 3. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 4. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019). Published in Landslide ® maga......
-
Have I Heard That Before? Copyright's Impact on Drawing Inspiration from Music's Past
...requirement to result-based functional language in a method claim for routing information); Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (observing that “essentially result-focused” and functional language “has been a frequent feature of claims held ineligible ......
-
The 'Essence' of an Invention Is as Important as the Claims
...and scope presumed when different words or phrases are used in separate claims). 13. E.g. , Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (method claim representative of 16 claims in three patents, including system claims). 14. United States v. Univis Len......