Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States

• Citation: 850 F.3d 1343
• Decision Date: 08 March 2017
• Docket Number: 2015-5150
• Parties: THALES VISIONIX INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee Elbit Systems of America, LLC, Third Party Defendant-Appellee
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

850 F.3d 1343

THALES VISIONIX INC., Plaintiff-Appellant

v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-AppelleeElbit Systems of America, LLC, Third Party Defendant-Appellee

2015-5150

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Decided: March 8, 2017

Meredith Martin Addy , Tabet DiVito & Rothstein, LLC, Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by Ashley Crettol Insalaco, Daniel I. Konieczny .

Andrew Paul Zager , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by Benjamin C. Mizer, John J. Fargo .

Kurt Calia , Covington & Burling LLP, Redwood Shores, CA, argued for third party defendant-appellee. Also represented by John Arthur Kelly, Matthew Aaron Kudzin, Ranganath Sudarshan , Washington, DC.

Jeffrey A. Lamken , MoloLamken LLP, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae BSA | The Software Alliance. Also represented by Michael Gregory Pattillo, Jr .

Before Moore, Wallach, and Stoll, Circuit Judges.

Moore, Circuit Judge.

Thales Visionix, Inc. ("TVI") appeals from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ("Claims Court") judgment on the pleadings holding that claims 1–5, 11–13, 20, 22–26, 32–34, and 41 of U.S. Patent No. 6,474,159 ("'159 patent") are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States , 122 Fed.Cl. 245, 257 (2015). We reverse the Claims Court's determination for all claims and remand for further proceedings.

BACKGROUND

The '159 patent discloses an inertial tracking system for tracking the motion of an object relative to a moving reference frame. '159 patent at 1:54–56. Inertial sensors, such as accelerometers and gyroscopes, measure the specific forces associated with changes in a sensor's position and orientation relative to a known starting position. Such sensors are used in a wide variety of applications, including aircraft navigation and virtual reality simulations. When mounted on a moving object, inertial sensors can calculate the position, orientation, and velocity of the object in 3-dimensional space, based on a specified starting point, without the need for any other external information. Because small errors in the measurement of acceleration and angular velocity translate to large errors in position over time, inertial systems generally include at least one other type of sensor, such as an optical or magnetic sensor, to intermittently correct these errors that compound over time.

The patent disclosure recognized that conventional solutions for tracking inertial motion of an object on a moving platform were flawed because both object- and platform-based inertial sensors measured motion relative to earth, and the error-correcting sensors on the tracked object measured position relative to the moving platform. Id. at 1:23–42. Attempting to fuse this data produced inconsistent position information when the moving platform accelerated or turned. Id.

The inertial sensors disclosed in the '159 patent do not use the conventional approach of measuring inertial changes with respect to the earth. Id. at 7:12–23. Instead, the platform (e.g., vehicle) inertial sensors directly measure the gravitational field in the platform frame. Id. at 7:12–49, fig. 3D. The object (e.g., helmet) inertial sensors then calculate position information relative to the frame of the moving platform. Id. at 7:41–67, 8:1–17, fig. 3D. By changing the reference frame, one can track the position and orientation of the object within the moving platform without input from a vehicle attitude reference system or calculating orientation or position of the moving platform itself. Id. at 8:34–41.

There are multiple advantages of the disclosed system over the prior art. First, it increases the accuracy with which inertial sensors measure the tracked object on the moving frame. Id. at 11:31–34. When the moving platform accelerates or turns, the inertial sensor on the platform directly measures the gravitational effect in the moving reference frame and the system therefore requires fewer measured inputs (and fewer points of potential error) to determine the position and orientation of the tracked object. Id. at 8:34–37. Second, the disclosed system can operate independently, without requiring other hardware on the moving platform that determine the orientation or position of the moving platform itself. Id. at 8:34–41. Third, because the whole system is installed on the inside of the moving platform, installation is also simpler than previous inertial systems. Id. at 7:5–10.

Claims 1 and 22, the only independent claims,¹ recite:

1. A system for tracking the motion of an object relative to a moving reference frame, comprising:

a first inertial sensor mounted on the tracked object;

a second inertial sensor mounted on the moving reference frame; and

an element adapted to receive signals from said first and second inertial sensors and configured to determine an orientation of the object relative to the moving reference frame based on the signals received from the first and second inertial sensors.

22. A method comprising determining an orientation of an object relative to a moving reference frame based on signals from two inertial sensors mounted respectively on the object and on the moving reference frame.

TVI sued the government and asserted the helmet-mounted display system ("HMDS") in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter infringes claims 1–5, 11–13, 20, 22–26, 32–34, and 41 of the '159 patent. Elbit Systems of America ("Elbit"), the government subcontractor that produces the HMDS, joined the case as a third-party defendant. The government and Elbit moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing all asserted claims disclosed patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they claim a law of nature.

The Claims Court granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and held all claims directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. It found the claims (1) are directed to the abstract idea of using laws of nature governing motion to track two objects, and (2) provide no inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. TVI appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

DISCUSSION

We review a decision from the Claims Court granting judgment on the pleadings de novo. Cary v. United States , 552 F.3d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2009). We also review a determination that claims are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter de novo. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. , 822 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

Section 101 provides that anyone who "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. 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that patent protection should not extend to claims that monopolize "the basic tools of scientific and technological work." Gottschalk v. Benson , 409 U.S. 63, 67, 93 S.Ct. 253, 34 L.Ed.2d 273 (1972) ; Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc. , 566 U.S. 66, 71, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 182 L.Ed.2d 321 (2012) ; Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int'l , ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2354, 189 L.Ed.2d 296 (2014). Accordingly, laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patent-eligible subject matter. Alice , 134 S.Ct. at 2354.

The Supreme Court's two-part Alice framework guides courts in distinguishing between patent claims that impermissibly claim the "building blocks of human ingenuity" and those that "integrate the building blocks into something more." Id. (internal quotations omitted). First, we "determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." Id. at 2355. If so, we "examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." Id. at 2357 (quoting Mayo , 566 U.S. at 72, 79, 132 S.Ct. 1289 ).

We begin our analysis at Alice step one: "whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." Id. at 2355. While the two steps of the Alice framework are related, the "Supreme Court's formulation makes clear that the first-stage filter is a meaningful one, sometimes ending the § 101 inquiry." Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A. , 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

The Supreme Court "has not established a definitive rule to determine what constitutes an ‘abstract idea’ " for the purposes of step one. Enfish , 822 F.3d at 1334 (citing Alice , 134 S.Ct at 2357 ). We have held claims ineligible as directed to an abstract idea when they merely collect electronic information, display information, or embodymental processes that could be performed by humans. Elec. Power Grp. , 830 F.3d at 1353–54 (collecting cases). At the same time, "all inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas." Mayo , 566 U.S. at 71, 132 S.Ct. 1289. We must therefore ensure at step one that we articulate what the claims are directed to with enough specificity to ensure the step one inquiry is meaningful. Alice , 134 S.Ct. at 2354 ("[W]e tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law.").

A number of cases are instructive as to the step one analysis. In Rapid Litigation Management Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc. , we evaluated claims for an improved process of preserving a type of liver cell by taking previously frozen and thawed cells, separating viable cells from non-viable ones, and recovering and refreezing the viable cells. 827 F.3d 1042, 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We held the claims patent-eligible under step one of Alice because they were directed to "a new and useful laboratory technique for preserving [liver cells]." Id. at 1048. While "the inventors certainly discovered the cells' ability to survive multiple freeze-thaw cycles," they did not claim the natural law itself, but a...