Court: District Court, D. Delaware; March 22, 2018; Federal District Court
Plaintiff Koninklijke KPN N.V. has initiated multiple lawsuits alleging infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 6,212,662, which addresses data transmission with error checking. Defendants have filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that all claims of the '662 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Court intends to grant this motion.
KPN's '662 patent is one of several patents asserted across eleven cases against various defendants, with the patent specifically relating to detecting transmission errors in data streams. The invention involves generating supplementary data at both ends of a transmission channel, which is then compared to identify potential transmission errors. The patent acknowledges existing methods for generating supplementary data, such as parity bits and cyclic redundancy codes, but claims these methods are insufficient in detecting certain types of errors, particularly systematic errors and alterations during transmission.
The patent aims to improve error detection by varying the original data to create supplementary data, thereby enhancing the likelihood of identifying systematic errors. The patent describes a device consisting of three components: a generating device for check data, a varying device to alter the original data, and a permutating device to rearrange bits within the original data blocks. Claims within the patent detail the functionality of these components, emphasizing the dynamic nature of the permutations based on the original data.
The generating device creates check data, also known as supplementary data, while the varying device alters original data to produce varied data, utilizing a permutating device that changes bit positions within data blocks without reordering them. Three dependent claims enhance the features of the varying and permutating devices, with claim 2 modifying permutations based on time, claim 3 based on the original data, and claim 4 including a table for storing later permutations.
Subsequent to the parties’ briefing on a motion on October 4, 2017, the Court of Appeals released several opinions regarding patentability under 35 U.S.C. 101. Notably, in Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC, the Federal Circuit upheld a decision deeming the asserted patent claims ineligible. During oral arguments on December 8, 2017, the application of this ruling was discussed. On February 20, 2018, KPN referenced Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., which highlighted that whether claim elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional is a factual issue. Defendants subsequently cited Automated Tracking Sols. LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., affirming a judgment that the patent claims were ineligible. The court noted several recent decisions affirming similar conclusions regarding patent eligibility.
The determination of patentable subject matter involves a legal question grounded in factual analysis, similar to issues of indefiniteness, enablement, or obviousness. The court must give deference to the factual findings in 101 inquiries, which often allow for resolution via motions for judgment on pleadings, dismissals, or summary judgment. The first step of the Alice-Mayo test assesses if the asserted claims pertain to a patent-ineligible concept. Although inventions may incorporate abstract ideas or natural laws, this does not automatically negate patent eligibility.
The Court finds that the claims of the '662 patent are directed to the abstract idea of reordering and generating data, which lacks patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claims do not specify how data is reordered or how to generate additional data, leading the Court to classify them as abstract. The dependent claims similarly fail to provide inventive limitations, merely referencing generic devices without detailing any unique modifications or implementations. KPN's argument that the claims represent a specific solution in the computer field is dismissed, as all components are deemed generic and conventional.
In the analysis, the Court examines whether the claims contain an inventive concept at step two. The claims, particularly independent claim 1, consist of basic device limitations related to data generation and permutation, which do not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. KPN's reliance on the specification to demonstrate inventiveness is insufficient, as any improvements mentioned are not reflected in the claims themselves. Notably, the claims lack references to critical elements such as transmission channels or data transmission, further undermining their patentability.
The claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,212,662 are deemed not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they lack an inventive concept and merely describe conventional computer operations. The patent's terminology, such as 'generating device,' 'varying device,' and 'permutating device,' refers to generic structures and does not enhance the claims' inventiveness. Modifications suggested by the patent, including time-based permutations or storing in tables, are characterized as routine steps. Despite the patent's assertion of addressing a technological problem, the claims do not reflect an inventive step to implement this solution. The Court concludes that the patent claims are directed to an abstract idea, leading to the grant of Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Court also notes that claim construction is not necessary for determining the patent's subject matter eligibility and finds that other issues raised by the parties do not affect the outcome. An order has been issued to this effect.
