Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

November 29, 2016, Decided

2015-1703, 2015-1704, 2015-1792, 2015-1793

Opinion

 [*1234]  [***1848]   Reyna, Circuit Judge.

In this appeal, we review Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions in three Covered Business Method ("CBM") reviews. The decisions addressed the subject matter eligibility of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850 ("'850 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325 ("'325 patent"), and U.S. Patent No. 6,982,733 ("'733 patent"). For the reasons explained below, we affirm-in-part and reverse-in-part.

BACKGROUND

I. Patents

Ameranth, Inc. ("Ameranth") owns the patents, which disclose computer systems with hardware and software.1 The patent specifications disclose a first menu that has categories and items, and software that can generate a second menu from that first menu by allowing categories and items to be selected. Claim 1 in the [**4]  '850 patent recites:

1. An information management and synchronous communications system for generating and transmitting menus comprising:

a. a central processing unit,

b. a data storage device connected to said central processing unit,

c. an operating system including a graphical user interface,

d. a first menu consisting of menu categories, said menu categories consisting of menu items, said first menu stored on said data storage device and displayable in a window of said graphical user interface in a hierarchical tree format,

e. a modifier menu stored on said data storage device and displayable in a window of said graphical user interface,

f. a sub-modifier menu stored on said data storage device and displayable in a window of said graphical user interface, and

g. application software for generating a second menu from said first menu and transmitting said second menu to a wireless handheld computing device or Web page,

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

842 F.3d 1229 *; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21277 **; 120 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1844 ***

APPLE, INC., DOMINO'S PIZZA, INC., DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC, FANDANGO, LLC, OPENTABLE, INC., Appellants v. AMERANTH, INC., Cross-Appellant;AMERANTH, INC., Appellant v. AGILYSYS, INC., EXPEDIA, INC., FANDANGO, LLC, HOTEL TONIGHT, INC., HOTWIRE, INC., HOTELS.COM, L.P., KAYAK SOFTWARE CORPORATION, LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., ORACLE CORPORATION, ORBITZ, LLC, OPENTABLE, INC., PAPA JOHN'S USA, INC., STUBHUB, INC., TICKETMASTER, LLC, TRAVELOCITY.COM LLP, WANDERSPOT LLC, DOMINO'S PIZZA, INC., DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC, MOBO SYSTEMS, INC., EVENTBRITE, INC., BEST WESTERN INTERNATIONAL, INC., HYATT CORPORATION, MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS WORLDWIDE INC., USABLENET, INC., APPLE, INC., HILTON RESORTS CORP., HILTON WORLDWIDE, INC., HILTON INTERNATIONAL CO., Appellees

Prior History:  [**1] Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, in No. CBM2014-00013.

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, in Nos. CBM2014-00015, CBM2014-00016.

Disposition: AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.

CORE TERMS

menu, patents, recites, customer, technological, invention, ordering, specification, processing, abstract idea, linking, argues, generating, synchronous, features, manual, unpatentable, interface, user, conventional, handwriting, capture, decisions, handheld, modified, software, subject matter, programming, restaurant, graphical

Administrative Law, Judicial Review, Standards of Review, Arbitrary & Capricious Standard of Review, Patent Law, Claims & Specifications, Claims, Claim Language, Jurisdiction & Review, De Novo Review, Substantial Evidence, Business & Corporate Compliance, US Patent & Trademark Office Proceedings, Patent Law, US Patent & Trademark Office Proceedings, Infringement Actions, Claim Interpretation, Scope of Claim, Construction Preferences, Claim Differentiation, Utility Patents, Process Patents, Elements, Subject Matter, Specifications, Description Requirement, Standards & Tests, Principles & Results