Chargepoint, Inc. v. Semaconnect, Inc.
920 F.3d 759 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Patent claims directed to the abstract idea of communication over a network for device interaction, when implemented using only generic computing components and conventional activities, are ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Facts:
- Electric vehicles recharge by connecting to electrical outlets, a process that typically requires hours.
- Businesses (like restaurants, apartments, shopping centers) install electric vehicle charging stations and manage them in various ways, such as offering free charging or limiting access.
- Utility companies manage varying electricity supply and demand, often using 'demand response' to reduce consumption during high demand or increase it during low demand.
- Electric vehicles can also supply electricity back to the grid (vehicle-to-grid or V2G) during periods of high demand.
- ChargePoint's inventors aimed to create networked charging stations to allow central management, enable drivers to locate stations, and facilitate intelligent interaction with the electricity grid.
- ChargePoint alleged it was the first company to propose and patent networked electric vehicle charging infrastructure, which it described as a 'paradigm-shifting concept' for charging vehicles in a dynamic, networked environment.
- The asserted patents generally describe electric vehicle charging stations connected to a network, which are linked to the local power grid and to which electric vehicles connect.
- The patent specification identified problems such as the lack of a communication network to find charging facilities, control them, pay for electricity, and manage peak load leveling using demand response and V2G.
Procedural Posture:
- ChargePoint, Inc. sued SemaConnect, Inc. for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
- ChargePoint filed a motion for emergency injunctive relief, which the district court denied.
- The district court ordered expedited briefing on SemaConnect’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion, which alleged patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
- The district court granted SemaConnect’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) with prejudice, ruling that each asserted claim was ineligible for patenting under § 101.
- The district court entered final judgment in favor of SemaConnect on March 23, 2018.
- ChargePoint (Plaintiff-Appellant) timely appealed the district court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
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 patent claims describing networked electric vehicle charging stations, which enable remote control and demand response, directed to an abstract idea and lacking an inventive concept, rendering them ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101?
Opinions:
Majority - Prost, Chief Judge
No, the asserted patent claims are not eligible for patenting because they are directed to the abstract idea of communication over a network for device interaction and lack an inventive concept. Applying the two-step Alice/Mayo framework, the court first determined that the claims were directed to an abstract idea. The specification indicated that the problem the patentee sought to solve was the lack of a communication network for efficient operation from a business perspective, not a technical improvement to the charging station itself. The claims' broad language would preempt the use of any networked charging stations, further suggesting they are focused on the abstract idea. The incorporation of 'demand response,' a known business choice to alter terms to match supply and demand, did not make the claims less abstract. Second, at the 'inventive concept' step, the court found that the claims did not include additional features sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The alleged 'inventive concepts' — such as network control, remote operation, or demand response integration — merely mirrored the abstract idea itself or constituted well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The claims did not improve how charging stations function from a technical perspective but rather applied generic networking capabilities in a conventional way.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the Federal Circuit's strict interpretation of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, particularly concerning computer-implemented inventions and business methods. It highlights that merely applying an abstract idea (like network communication or demand response) to a particular technological field (electric vehicle charging) using generic components, without demonstrating a technical improvement to the underlying technology, is insufficient to confer patent eligibility. The decision further clarifies that claims broadly written to preempt an entire industry's ability to use a general concept, even if the specification contains technical details, will likely fail the Alice/Mayo Step 1 'directed to' inquiry. This case serves as a caution to patentees that simply identifying a problem related to efficiency or business interaction and proposing a networked solution may not be enough for patent protection unless the claims specifically articulate a concrete technical solution that improves the underlying technology.
