Federal Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment in Precedential Opinion on Patent Claims Directed to Targeting Advertisements as Ineligible Subject Matter Under 35 U.S.C. § 101

April 16, 2024

Reading Time : 5 min

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed summary judgment that patent claims directed to identifying advertisements based on search results are patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court found that identifying advertisements based on search results is an abstract idea and that none of the concepts that patent owner identified are inventive to transform this abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.

Chewy, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation, No. 2022-1756 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 05, 2024) (precedential).

Chewy sued IBM in the Southern District of New York, seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement of several IBM patents, including the ’443 patent. The ’443 patent discloses “improved systems and methods for targeting advertisements.” IBM appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgement that claims 13, 15, 16 and 17 of the ’443 patent are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Claim 13 recites (simplified, and including claims 1 and 5, on which claim 13 depends):

A method for targeting an associated advertisement from an Internet search having access to an information repository by a user, comprising:

identifying a search result item from a search result of the Internet search;

searching for an associated advertisement within the repository using the search result item;

identifying an associated advertisement from the repository having at least one word that matches the search result item;

correlating the associated advertisement with the search result item;

designating the search result item matched to the associated advertisement for subsequent selection by a user; and

performing an off-line batch process for each search result item, wherein the process identifies at least one associated advertisement for each search result item.

Claim 15 recites (simplified):

A method for providing related advertisements for search result items from a search of an information repository, comprising:

matching the search result items to the related advertisements;

designating each search result item that have the related advertisements matched therewith;

providing a corresponding graphical user interface for each search result item so designated for subsequent user selection;

searching and retrieving the related advertisements for one of the search result items when selected by a user; and,

formatting and displaying the related advertisements upon selection.

Claim 16 depends on claim 15 and further recites (simplified):

assigning an identifier for the user when the user submits a query to the information repository.

Claim 17 depends on claim 15 and further recites (simplified):

the related advertisements comprise related product advertisements.

The court analyzed eligibility using the Supreme Court’s two-step Alice framework. In step one, a court determines whether the claims are “directed to a patent-ineligible concept,” such as an abstract idea. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014). If they are, the court proceeds to step two—the search for an “inventive concept”—and considers “the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Lab’ys, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78-79 (2012)). An inventive concept is more than merely implementing an abstract idea using “well-understood, routine, conventional” activities previously known to the industry. Id. at 225.

1. Alice Step One

Addressing Alice step one, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of identifying advertisements based on search results. The court reasoned the claims “broadly recite correlating advertisements with search results using a generic process.” The court noted prior decisions finding claims to targeted advertising were directed to an abstract idea, including Customedia Technologies, LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

The court distinguished Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc., 965 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2020), because the claims in that case were directed to “challenges unique to computer networks, or specific improvements to the functionality of the computer itself.” In contrast, the claims here “merely recite the concept of identifying advertisements based on search results, without any specificity as to how this is accomplished.” The court reasoned that, even if the claimed method “improves the specificity and relevancy of online advertisements,” this is “at most an improvement to the abstract concept of targeted advertising wherein a computer is merely used as a tool.”

2. Alice Step Two

Addressing Alice step two, the court found that none of the concepts identified by the patent owner are inventive sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The identified concepts include (1) “an inventive repository configured to associate search results with advertisements”; (2) “using offline batch processing in an unconventional way”; and (3) “refining the targeting criteria by assigning session identifiers when the user enters a search query.”

For the first concept, the court found that “[u]sing a generic database to store the information used in correlating advertisements with search results” is not inventive. The patent owner argued that the repository is specialized, but the court found this is “not supported” because the patent refers to an “information repository” with no further details. For the second concept, the court noted that it was undisputed that off-line batch processing was conventional. The court also stated that “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer [does not] provide a sufficient inventive concept.” For the third concept, the court found that the claimed use of session values is not a sufficient inventive concept because the patent provides “no additional detail as to how this is done in an unconventional way.” The patent owner’s expert testified that the claimed use of session values is “more precise and requires less processing on the backend,” but the court found that this alone is insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible concept.

The patent owner further argued that the claims recite an inventive concept as “an ordered combination” because they describe a specific method of using search results in targeted advertising. The court, however, disagreed. The court reasoned that the claims recite “the generic process of obtaining search results from a search query and using the search results to identify advertisements” and the claims “do not recite any specific implementation of the abstract concept of using search results to identify relevant advertisements.”

Practice Tip: In the computer arts, patent owners should avoid claiming abstract ideas consisting of merely generic processes without providing any specificity to these processes and should also avoid claiming improvements to an abstract concept wherein a computer is merely used as a tool. Instead, patent owners should focus on claiming a specific implementation, support how the claims are inventive in the patent specification, and provide detail on how the claims are performed in an unconventional way.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

November 5, 2024

The Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s fee award because the district court considered certain information that was not relevant to the question of whether plaintiff’s case was exceptional. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that only those “red flags” that related to the successful Section 101 defense, which served as the basis for the district court’s grant of summary judgment, could be used to show the case was fatally flawed.   

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 1, 2024

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission articulated a bright-line test for patent expert admissibility: to testify from the perspective of a “person of ordinary skill in the art” (POSITA), the expert must at least meet the definition of a POSITA for the patents-in-suit. Absent that level of skill, Kyocera holds that the witness’s testimony is not sufficiently reliable or relevant enough to be relied on by a fact-finder.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

October 29, 2024

The PTAB denied a petitioner’s motion to compel routine discovery that sought information from a parallel ITC investigation for alleged inconsistent positions taken by patent owner in the IPR. The board found that patent owner had not taken inconsistent positions but warned patent owner that it had an ongoing duty to produce any information inconsistent with arguments made during the present IPR, even if that information related to arguments patent owner had dropped at the ITC.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

October 11, 2024

The Central District of California ruled that the heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) applies to all three prongs of a false patent marking claim, including the third prong, competitive injury. In doing so, took a clear stand on an issue with a nationwide split among district courts.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

October 10, 2024

In a patent case containing a variety of federal and state law claims, the District of Massachusetts retained supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims even after all the federal law claims were dismissed.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

October 3, 2024

The Federal Circuit recently upheld the USPTO’s authority under the estoppel provision 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i) to prohibit a patent owner from obtaining patent claims that are not patentably distinct from claims previously declared unpatentable in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. However, the court clarified that the regulation applies only to new claims or amended claims, not previously issued claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 27, 2024

In Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit held that an expert must meet the definition of a “person of ordinary skill in the art” of the asserted patents in order to opine on infringement, among other issues. This new bright-line test and the underlying rationale, however, raised several new questions regarding expert admissibility. SeeFederal Circuit: Narrow Definition of Skill in the Art Dooms Expert’s Testimony” and “Grappling With A Bright-Line Patent Expert Admissibility Test.” The Federal Circuit recently addressed one of those questions, namely whether an expert must have acquired the requisite level of skill as of the time of the invention or whether it is sufficient for an expert to acquire that knowledge at a later date.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 23, 2024

The Director of the USPTO initiated sua sponte review of a PTAB panel’s decision to impose sanctions based on patentee’s conduct during IPR proceedings. The PTAB cancelled all of patentee’s claims, including those not unpatentable on the merits, after finding that patentee deliberately withheld data relevant to the patentability of the claims at issue. In her review, the Director addressed which regulations are implicated upon a party’s misconduct during AIA proceedings and addressed whether entry of judgment in the trial was an appropriate sanction.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.