McRO v. Bandai Namco Games Am. (McRO I)
822 F.3d 1327 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A patent claim for a process that automates a pre-existing human activity is not directed to an abstract idea if the claim is limited to a specific, unconventional method that improves the relevant technology, rather than merely claiming the general idea of automation itself.
Facts:
- Prior to the invention, 3D character animation and lip synchronization were accomplished manually by skilled animators.
- Animators used a 'keyframe' approach, where they would look at a 'timed transcript' of phonemes (the distinct sounds of speech) and subjectively set the character's facial expression at important moments.
- These facial expressions were created by blending different 3D models of a character's face, known as 'morph targets,' each corresponding to a specific sound.
- The manual keyframing process was described as very tedious, time-consuming, and prone to inaccuracies.
- Maury Rosenfeld was issued patents for a method to automate this process.
- The patented method uses a set of rules that analyze a timed sequence of phonemes to automatically calculate the appropriate morph weights and transitions.
- Crucially, these rules evaluate 'sub-sequences' of phonemes, considering the context of preceding and succeeding sounds, to produce more realistic and accurate facial animation automatically.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff-Appellant McRO, Inc. filed patent infringement lawsuits against various video game developers in several U.S. District Courts.
- The cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
- The defendants filed a joint motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the asserted patent claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea.
- The district court (court of first instance) granted the defendants' motion, holding that the claims were unpatentable.
- McRO, Inc. appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. 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:
Does a method for automatically animating 3D characters' lip synchronization using a specific genus of rules based on phoneme sub-sequences constitute a patent-ineligible abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101?
Opinions:
Majority - Reyna, Circuit Judge
No. A process for automatically animating lip synchronization using specific, limited rules is not directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. The court found that the claims were not directed to the abstract idea of using rules for animation, but rather to a specific, technological improvement in the field of 3D computer animation. The court's reasoning, applying the first step of the Alice framework, was that the claims are limited to a particular type of rule-based solution—one that uses rules defining morph weight sets as a function of phoneme sub-sequences and their timing. This is a specific implementation, not a preemption of the abstract idea itself. The court distinguished this case from Flook and Alice because the claimed process is fundamentally different from the prior art manual method, which was a subjective, artistic process. The patent's incorporation of specific, unconventional rules improved the existing technological process, making it a patentable application rather than an abstract idea, consistent with the principles of Diamond v. Diehr. Because the claims were not directed to an abstract idea at Alice step one, the court did not need to proceed to step two.
Analysis:
This decision provided crucial guidance on the patent eligibility of software under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the wake of Alice. It clarified that claims automating a previously human-driven process can be patent-eligible if they are directed to a specific technological improvement rather than the general concept of automation. By focusing on how the claimed rules provided a specific, unconventional solution that improved the functioning of the computer itself, the Federal Circuit established a pathway for software patents to survive § 101 challenges at step one of the Alice framework. The case signaled that a detailed, technical claim that solves a technological problem using a specific, non-preemptive method is likely to be considered patent-eligible subject matter.
