Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

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

Weisner v. Google LLC

Weisner v. Google LLC

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

October 13, 2022, Decided

2021-2228

Opinion

 [*1075]  Stoll, Circuit Judge.

Sholem Weisner appeals from the district court's dismissal of his patent infringement suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court held all of the asserted claims ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We affirm-in-part and reverse-in-part.

Background

Mr. Weisner—a named inventor of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,380,202, 10,642,910, 10,394,905 and 10,642,911—sued Google LLC for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The four asserted patents are related and share a common specification.1 The shared specification generally [**2]  describes ways to "digitally record a person's physical activities" and ways to use this digital record. '202 patent, Abstract. Specifically, it describes a way in which individuals and businesses can sign up for a system so that they can exchange information, for instance "a URL or an electronic business card." Id. at col. 3 ll. 30-36. Then, as individuals go about their day, they may encounter people or businesses that they want recorded in their "leg history," which records the URLs or business cards along with the time and place of the encounters. Id. at col. 3 l. 48-col. 4 l. 23; see also id. at Fig. 8. The specification describes a "leg history" as "the accumulation of a digital record of a person's physical presence across time." Id. at col. 1 ll. 6-10.

Individuals record entries in their travel history either by accepting a proposal from another person/business (e.g., by "push[ing] a button"), or by unilaterally making an entry (e.g., by "tak[ing] a snapshot with a digital camera . . . and upload[ing] it to [their] databank"). Id. at col. 3 l. 48-col. 4 l. 11. These methods are illustrated in Figure 3 (showing a user accepting a proposed entry by "Macy's") and Figure 4 (showing a user [**3]  unilaterally making an entry at "Benson's" by taking a photograph):

 [*1076]  

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.

51 F.4th 1073 *; 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 28447 **

SHOLEM WEISNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, SHMUEL NEMANOV, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant-Appellee

Prior History:  [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in No. 1:20-cv-02862-AKH, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein.

Disposition: AFFIRMED-IN-PART AND REVERSED-IN-PART.

CORE TERMS

patent, vendor, stationary, searching, physical location, inventive, individual member, physical encounter, specification, network, digital, recites, travel, search engine, mobile communications, abstract idea, conventional, processing system, generic, computerized, ineligible, district court, handheld, user, allegations, algorithm, Internet, target, eligibility, accumulation

Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Motions to Dismiss, Failure to State Claim, Patent Law, Jurisdiction & Review, Utility Patents, Process Patents, New Uses, Principles & Results, Computer Software & Mental Steps, Defenses, Patent Invalidity, Grounds