直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Cable Providers “Cut the Cord”: Audio/Video Streaming Patents Fail Both Alice Steps

November 10, 2017

Authored and Edited by John E. Nappi; Lillian M. Robinson; Elizabeth D. Ferrill

The Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the Delaware District Court in Two-Way Media, Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, Inc., Nos. 16-2531, 16-2532 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017), determining that Two-Way Media’s patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The patents at issue claimed an improved scalable architecture for delivering real-time audio and video information to multiple recipients using a communications system, such as the internet.

 The Federal Circuit reviewed Two-Way Media’s patents following the steps provided in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). The Court determined that the claims failed step one of Alice because the claims were directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea). Moreover, the Court noted that the provided claim constructions proposed the use of generic computer components to perform the abstract idea, and thus the patents failed to claim any improvement in system function.

 Moving to step two of Alice, the Court found no “saving inventive concept” that would transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application, as the claims only recited conventional steps using conventional computer and network technology to achieve their desired result. Thus, the Court concluded that the claims were invalid under § 101.

Tags

35 U.S.C. § 101

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Related Industries

Hospitality, Gaming, and Leisure

Media

Contacts

Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Copyright © 2017 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.

Related Insights

Conference

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 3, 2026

Paris

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Conference

2026 EDTX Bench Bar Conference

October 28-30, 2026

Fort Worth

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – California

October 19-20, 2026

San Francisco

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – New York

September 28-29, 2026

New York

Conference

2026 IPO Annual Meeting

September 27-29, 2026

Toronto

Conference

IAM Live: SEP Summit Global 2026

September 9-10, 2026

London

Lecture

Resolving Patent Suits Without Settlement Payments

September 3, 2026

Virtual

Conference

Georgia Life Sciences Summit 2026

August 25-26, 2026

Sandy Springs

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP