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

Federal Circuit Elaborates on Significance of Computer Hardware Elements to § 101 Analysis

May 25, 2016

Authored and Edited by Elizabeth D. Ferrill; Nathan I. North, Jeff T. Watson

In TLI Communications, LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C., No. 15-1372 (Fed. Cir. May 17, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed an order to dismiss, finding that the patent-in-suit is directed to an abstract idea and that generic steps for applying the abstract idea on a telephone network do not confer patent eligibility to the abstract idea.

TLI Communications sued the defendants for infringing its patent covering a method and system for taking, transmitting, and organizing digital images. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, arguing that the patent is drawn to patent-ineligible subject matter. The district court agreed, concluding that the claims are drawn to the abstract idea of taking, organizing, classifying, and storing photographs. In reaching its decision, the district court did not give the claims’ recitation of a telephone unit or a server, or a “means for allocating” limitation, any patentable weight.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court’s application of the two-part test set forth in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. The Court found the claims were directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a well-known environment without indicating that the claims solved a problem presented by combining the two. Further, the patent only provided functional descriptions of the tangible components without any structure or details. Accordingly, the Court found that merely reciting the server and the phone did not confer patent eligibility to the abstract idea. Thus, the Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the complaint.

 

*Nathan I. North is a Summer Associate at Finnegan

Tags

35 U.S.C. § 101

Contacts

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

Copyright © 2016 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

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Charitable

Banding Together 2026

June 18, 2026

Washington, DC

Lecture

Munich Licensing Summer Course 2026

June 18-19, 2026

Munich

Conference

IPBC Global 2026

June 15-17, 2026

San Diego

Conference

2026 Copyright Society Annual Meeting

June 14-16, 2026

Louisville

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Claim Disclaimer Derails Instituted IPR in Freightcar America

May 26, 2026

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