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

Conference

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 3, 2026

Paris

Conference

2026 AIPLA Annual Meeting

October 29-31, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

2026 EDTX Bench Bar Conference

October 28-30, 2026

Fort Worth

Conference

ChIPs Global Summit 2026

October 21-23, 2026

Los Angeles

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

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