May 19, 2020
Authored and Edited by Michelle (Yongyuan) Rice; Caitlin E. O'Connell; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Electronic Communication Technologies. v. Shopperschoice.com, No. 2019- 1587 (Fed. Cir. May 14, 2020), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of ShoppersChoice’s motion for judgement on the pleadings, finding that the challenged claim of U.S. Patent No. 9,373,261 (“the ’261 patent”) is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 11 of the ’261 patent relates to an “automated notification system” that enables communication regarding service or goods delivery. The district court found the claim patent ineligible, concluding that it was directed to an abstract idea and recited only generic computer components configured to perform conventional functions.
On appeal, under Step One of the two-step Alice/Mayo eligibility framework, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that claim 11 was directed to the abstract idea of “providing advance notification of the pickup or delivery of a mobile thing.” In doing so, the Court rejected ECT’s arguments that the claimed invention was “unique” because the purportedly “unique” aspects of the claims were also abstract. ECT’s arguments based on its diligence and transparency during prosecution were rejected as irrelevant. Under Step Two, the Court found that claim 11 was specified at a high level of generality and merely invoked conventional components and activity to apply the abstract idea. Finally, the Court rejected ECT’s argument that the district court should have engaged in claim construction before deciding eligibility under § 101 because ECT failed to identify a single claim term that allegedly needed construction. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court judgement.
Copyright © 2020 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.
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.