3G Licensing v. Blackberry Ltd.
302 F. Supp. 3d 640 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Patent claims directed to an abstract idea, such as reordering and generating data, are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 unless they contain an inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application, and this inventive concept must be evident in the claims themselves, not merely in the specification.
Facts:
- Koninklijke KPN N.V. (KPN) sued multiple defendants for alleged infringement of KPN's U.S. Patent No. 6,212,662 ('662 patent).
- The '662 patent is titled 'Method and Devices for the Transmission of Data with Transmission Error Checking' and relates to detecting errors in data streams or packets during transmission.
- The claimed invention involves generating supplementary data at both the transmitting and receiving ends of a transmission channel using a first and second function, respectively.
- The generated supplementary data from each end are then compared; if they do not correspond, a transmission error may have occurred, and data can be re-transmitted.
- Prior art methods for generating supplementary data (e.g., parity bits, CRC generators) were known but sometimes failed to detect errors, particularly 'systematic errors' or errors in data altered during transmission (e.g., compressed or encoded data).
- The '662 patent purports to improve error detection by 'varying' the original data to create supplementary data, which increases the probability of detecting systematic errors and works well with compressed data.
- Claim 1 of the '662 patent describes a device with a generating device, a varying device, and a permutating device, where the permutating device reorders bit positions within data blocks without reordering the blocks themselves.
- The patent specification explains that the functions used to generate data in the claimed device can be implemented in software or conventional hardware (e.g., ASIC).
Procedural Posture:
- Koninklijke KPN N.V. (KPN) sued multiple defendants in numerous related actions for alleged infringement of KPN's U.S. Patent No. 6,212,662.
- Defendants filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that all claims of the '662 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
- The parties completed briefing on the motion.
- The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware heard oral argument on the pending motion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,212,662 patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, applying the two-step framework of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International?
Opinions:
Majority - Stark, U.S. District Judge
No, the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,212,662 are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without an inventive concept captured in the claims. Applying the Alice/Mayo two-step framework, the Court first determined that the asserted claims are directed to the abstract idea of reordering data and generating additional data. This characterization aligns with Federal Circuit precedent, which has found similar claims reciting data manipulation steps without additional concrete limitations to be abstract (e.g., Two-Way Media, RecogniCorp, Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One, Digitech Image Techs.). The claims broadly recite generic functions like 'generating,' 'varying,' and 'permutating' data, without specifying how the data is reordered, used, or even that it is transmitted. The dependent claims merely add conventional modifications or storage in a generic table, which do not make them non-abstract. The Court rejected KPN's argument that the claims describe a specific implementation to a computer problem, noting that all components (functions, software, hardware) are characterized as conventional and generic. Proceeding to step two, the Court found no 'inventive concept' evident in the claims that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. Claim 1 broadly recites generic functions without providing sufficient details on how the desired result is achieved (Elec. Power Grp.). Crucially, even if the patent's specification describes an inventive way of checking errors in transmitted data, this purported inventive concept is not captured in the claims themselves. The claims lack limitations regarding a transmission channel, transmitting/receiving ends, or data transmission, which are central to the 'object of the invention' as described in the specification. Furthermore, all disclosed capabilities and functions, such as the general concept of generating supplementary data, data structures, permutation methods, functions, and the software/hardware implementations, are described as conventional in the prior art. The dependent claims similarly recite only conventional computer operations (modifying permutations in time or based on data, storing permutations in a table). The Court distinguished cases like Amdocs and MAZ Encryption where inventive concepts were indeed captured within the claims. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the claims recite no more than routine steps of reordering and generating data using generic components and conventional operations, failing to claim an inventive step to achieve the stated goal of better error detection.
Analysis:
This case underscores the critical requirement that for an invention directed to an abstract idea to be patent-eligible, the 'inventive concept' must be explicitly and concretely captured within the patent claims, rather than merely described in the patent's specification. It reinforces that simply applying an abstract idea in a particular field, or using generic computer components to perform data manipulation, is insufficient to confer patent eligibility under § 101. The decision highlights the continued challenges for software and business method patents in demonstrating a true technological improvement beyond the abstract concept, especially when facing early-stage motions for judgment on the pleadings, requiring meticulous claim drafting that ties the abstract idea to a specific, non-conventional technical solution.
