“Delivery Failed”: Shopping Notification Patent Lost Under § 101

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.