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

Streaming Under § 101: No Affinity for Patent Against Music Store App

October 06, 2016

Authored and Edited by Duane L. Carver; Elizabeth D. Ferrill; Lauren J. Dreyer

In Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al., No. 15-2080 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed another invalidity ruling for lack of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  Affinity sued Amazon, alleging that it infringed a patent by marketing the Amazon Music system, which allows customers to stream music from a customized library. Amazon moved for summary judgment on the pleadings under § 101, and the Federal Circuit agreed.

Ruling that the patent was directed to the use of conventional or generic technology, such as “dial-a-joke” or “dial-a-prayer” that predated cell phones or the Internet, the Court reasoned that Affinity’s patent was directed toward the abstract concept of delivering user-selected media content to portable devices.  Further, the Court reasoned that features of the patent, such as a customizable interface and wireless streaming, did not embody an inventive concept.  The patent did not claim them with the specificity required in its claims or specification, according to the Court.

Tags

35 U.S.C. § 101, Amazon

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

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 2026

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

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