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 Jr.; 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

Conference

Patent Litigation Europe 2027

January 18-20, 2027

Amsterdam

Reception

2026 IPO Education Foundation Awards Dinner

December 15, 2026

Washington, DC

Panel Discussion

2026 Advanced Patent Law Institute

December 3-4, 2026

Stanford

Conference

IPBC Asia 2026

November 17-19, 2026

Tokyo

Charitable

2026 ALYN Hospital Wheels of Love Ride

November 8-12, 2026

Northern District

Conference

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 4, 2026

Paris

Conference

2026 ANA Masters of Advertising Law Conference

November 2-4, 2026

Huntington Beach

Conference

Life Sciences Patent Network North America Fall 2026

November 2-3, 2026

San Francisco

Conference

2026 AIPLA Annual Meeting

October 29-31, 2026

Washington, DC

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