Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

July 20, 2018, Decided

2016-2502, 2016-2505, 2016-2506, 2016-2507

Opinion

 [*1337]  [***1554]   Chen, Circuit Judge.

In our previous decision in Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., we upheld the district court's judgment invalidating claims 1-4 and 7-15 of U.S. Patent No. 6,788,314, and claims 4-8, 11, 34, and 35 of  [*1338]  U.S. Patent No. 6,034,652 on indefiniteness grounds. 766 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2014). As to four other asserted claims of the '652 patent, claims 15-18, we vacated the judgment of non-infringement and remanded for further proceedings because the non-infringement judgment had been premised on an incorrect construction of the claim term "attention manager." Claims 15-18 now return to us from the Western District of Washington after a determination that they fail to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 193 F. Supp. 3d 1184, 1190 (W.D. Wash. 2016).

We affirm. Claims 15-18 are directed to an abstract idea: the presentation of two sets of information, in a non-overlapping way, on a display screen. The claimed "attention manager," broadly construed as any "system" for producing that result, is not limited to a means of locating space on the screen unused by a first set of displayed information and then displaying the second set of information in that space. The claim limitations [**3]  for accessing, scheduling, and then displaying the second information set are conventional functions stated in general terms and do not further define how the attention manager segregates the display of two sets of data on a display screen. Considered as a whole, the claims fail under § 101's abstract idea exception because they lack any arguable technical advance over conventional computer and network technology for performing the recited functions of acquiring and displaying information.

BACKGROUND

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.

896 F.3d 1335 *; 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 20277 **; 127 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1553 ***

INTERVAL LICENSING LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. AOL, INC., APPLE, INC., GOOGLE LLC, YAHOO!, INC., Defendants-Appellees

Prior History:  [**1] Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in Nos. 2:13-cv-00263-MJP, 2:13-cv-00264-MJP, 2:13-cv-00265-MJP, 2:13-cv-00266-MJP, Judge Marsha J. Pechman, Senior Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein.

Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL Inc., 193 F. Supp. 3d 1184, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122849 (W.D. Wash., June 16, 2016)

CORE TERMS

display, patent, instructions, inventive, abstract idea, user, recite, screen, conventional, generic, cases, specification, limitations, eligibility, technological, scheduling, acquisition, district court, installation, courts, patent law, update, functions, interface, enabling, network, unused, steps, natural phenomena, collecting

Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Patent Law, Jurisdiction & Review, Judgments, Pretrial Judgments, Judgment on Pleadings, Questions of Fact & Law, Subject Matter, Subject Matter, Utility Patents, Process Patents, Process Patents, Computer Software & Mental Steps, New Uses