June 21, 2021
Authored and Edited by Christopher C. Johns; Caitlin E. O'Connell; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Yu v. Apple Inc., No. 2020-1760 (Fed. Cir. June 11, 2021), a divided Federal Circuit panel affirmed finding that claims directed to a digital camera were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Yu filed suit against Apple for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,611,289. Apple filed a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim arguing the patent was ineligible under § 101. The district court granted the motion, finding the claims directed to the abstract idea of “taking two pictures and using those pictures to enhance each other in some way,” and failed to recite any “inventive concept” beyond that idea.
On appeal, Judges Prost and Taranto agreed. Under step one of the two-step Mayo/Alice inquiry, the Court found that the claims were directed to a “result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke[s] generic processes and machinery.” Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit Authority, 873 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The claimed lenses and sensors performed their basic functions and were claimed generically. Under step two, the Court found that the claims failed to recite more than a well-understood, routine, and conventional arrangement of generic parts. The Court rejected Yu’s argument that the claims provided a “specific solution” to low resolution images and that the specification demonstrated enhancements to the prior art.
Judge Newman dissented. Her opinion decried the court’s enlargement of § 101 to encompass claims to digital camera technology. Judge Newman explained that the Supreme Court has made clear that § 101 is a “general statement of the type of subject matter” eligible for patenting, while other statutes concerned the “specific conditions,” such as novelty (§ 102). In her view, the Court violated the dividing line between § 101 and § 102 by finding the claimed digital camera abstract due to its well-known and conventional components.
patentable subject matter, 35 U.S.C. § 101, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
Copyright © 2021 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
Webinar
Obviousness of Biologics Inventions: Strategies for Biologics Claims in the U.S., Europe, and China
May 28,2024
Webinar
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.