{"id":3461,"date":"2023-02-17T19:05:00","date_gmt":"2023-02-18T01:05:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=3461"},"modified":"2023-02-18T15:47:14","modified_gmt":"2023-02-18T21:47:14","slug":"storing-and-displaying-video-is-an-abstract-idea","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=3461","title":{"rendered":"Storing and Displaying Video is an Abstract Idea"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. Castle Retail, LLC, [2022-1222]<\/a> (February 17, 2022), the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit because the asserted patent claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,499,091 on a method of viewing multiple simultaneously displayed and
stored video images on a remote viewing device of a video surveillance system were directed to ineligible subject matter and therefore invalid under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 101.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The district court concluded that the \u2019091 patent claims were directed to the abstract idea of \u201cstoring and displaying video,\u201d and the Federal Circuit agreed, noting that the claims are similar to those it has found to be directed to abstract ideas. The Court noted that in Adaptive Streaming Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., 836 F. App\u2019x 900, 903 (Fed. Cir. 2020), it held that \u201cencoding and decoding image data and . . . converting formats, including when data is received from one medium and sent along through another, are by themselves abstract
ideas.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While Hawk characterized its invention as a solution to a technical problem in multi-format digital video product systems, the Federal Circuit pointed out that even a specification full of technical details about a physical invention may nonetheless conclude with claims that claim
nothing more than the broad law or abstract idea underlying the claims. The claims fail to recite a specific solution to make the alleged improvement\u2014 conserving bandwidth while preserving quality\u2014\u201cconcrete\u201d and at most recite abstract data manipulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At Alice step two, the Federal Circuit said that the district court found that the claims, \u201cread in light of the specification, do not show a technological improvement in video storage and display because the limitations can be implemented using generic computer elements,\u201d and that the \u201cspecification and claims do not explain or show how the monitoring and storage is improved, except by using already existing computer and camera technology,\u201d and thus the claims failed at Alice step two. The Federal Circuit agreed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Again, Hawk argued that the claims recite an inventive solution, but the Federal Circuit said that even if the claims achieved the purported solution, they only use generic functional language to do so and require nothing other than conventional computer and network components operating according to their ordinary functions. The Federal Circuit said that it recognize that the claims include \u201cparameters,\u201d but the claims fail to specify precisely what the parameters are and the parameters at most concern abstract data manipulation image formatting and compression.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Federal Circuit therefore found that the \u2019091 patent claims fail to transform the abstract idea into something more and thus fail Alice step two. The Court that held that the \u2019091 patent is patent ineligible because its claims are directed to an abstract idea and fail to
transform that abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. Castle Retail, LLC, [2022-1222] (February 17, 2022), the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit because the asserted patent claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,499,091 on a method of viewing multiple simultaneously displayed … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3461","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-15"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3461","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3461"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3461\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3462,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3461\/revisions\/3462"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3461"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3461"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3461"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}