In Affinity Labs of Texas v. Amazon.com, Inc., [2015-2080] (September 23, 2016) the Federal Circuit affirmed judgment on the pleadings that U.S. Patent No. 8,688,085 on a\u00a0System and Method to Communicate\u00a0Targeted Information was directed to unpatentable subject matter.<\/p>\n
The Federal Circuit found that\u00a0the district court\u2019s conclusion was consistent with its The Federal Circuit rejected the argument that\u00a0\u2019085 patent embodied a concrete The Federal Circuit concluded that\u00a0In sum, the ‘085 patent was not directed to the <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In Affinity Labs of Texas v. Amazon.com, Inc., [2015-2080] (September 23, 2016) the Federal Circuit affirmed judgment on the pleadings that U.S. Patent No. 8,688,085 on a\u00a0System and Method to Communicate\u00a0Targeted Information was directed to unpatentable subject matter. The Federal … Continue reading
\napproach to the \u201cabstract idea\u201d step in prior cases, including In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation<\/em>,\u00a0which\u00a0involved a patent on a\u00a0method for uploading digital images from a cellular\u00a0telephone to a server, which would then classify and store\u00a0the images. \u00a0The Federal Circuit further found that the idea of the ‘085 patent was “even broader and more abstract” than the idea in\u00a0Ultramercial<\/em>, where a process of allowing
\na consumer to receive copyrighted media in exchange\u00a0for watching a selected advertisement was found to be an abstract\u00a0idea.<\/p>\n
\ntechnological innovation, noting the purely functional nature of the\u00a0claim, which confirms that it is directed to an abstract idea, not\u00a0to a concrete embodiment of that idea. \u00a0The Federal Circuit said that claims thus do not go beyond stating the relevant\u00a0functions in general terms, without limiting them to\u00a0technical means for performing the functions that are\u00a0arguably an advance over conventional computer and\u00a0network technology.<\/p>\n
\nsolution of a \u201ctechnological problem,\u201d nor was it directed to an improvement in computer or\u00a0network functionality. \u00a0It claims the general concept of\u00a0streaming user-selected content to a portable device. The\u00a0addition of basic user customization features to the interface\u00a0did not alter the abstract nature of the claims and\u00a0does not add an inventive component that renders the\u00a0claims patentable.<\/p>\n