Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Advertising-Based Content Distribution Patent Fails Bilski Test in District Court

Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu LLC, No. CV 09-06918 (C.D. Cal., August 13, 2010)

Ultramerical brought suit against Hulu for alleged infringement of a patent directed to distributing copyrighted products over the Internet.  Specifically, the ('545) patent allows Internet users to view copyrighted material free of charge in exchange for watching certain advertisements.  A computer or a server acts as a gateway between the Internet user and the copyrighted material. An advertisement sponsor may purchase advertising space for a particular copyrighted material (e.g., TV show). Upon attempting to stream a “free” television show episode, for example, the Internet user will be presented with advertisement. The user cannot view the copyrighted material until the ad is fully displayed.

After reviewing the claims, the district court held the patent invalid for non-statutory subject matter under Bilski.

The "Machine-or-Transformation" Test:

It is important to note, however, that even after the Supreme Court’s decision in Bilski, the machine or transformation test appears to have a major screening function–albeit not perfect– that separates unpatentable ideas from patentable ones. Indeed, four of the Justices, listed on Justice Stevens’s concurring opinion, would have taken the machine or transformation test to its logical limit to hold that business methods are categorically unpatentable. . . . Joining a concurring opinion, Justice Scalia . . . would agree with Justice Breyer that “not [] many patentable processes lie beyond [the] reach [of the machine or transformation test].” . . . In sum, at least five (and maybe all) Justices seem to agree that the machine or transformation test should retain much of its utility after the Supreme Court’s decision in Bilski. Therefore, even though the machine or transformation is no longer the litmus test for patentability, the Court will use it here as a key indicator of patentability.
The "Machine" Prong:

The parties agreed that there were only three points identified as a possible reference to a machine.  One independent claim recited a "method for distribution of products over the Internet via a facilitator,” while a dependent claim recited "wherein media product accessed by the consumer is downloaded to a memory of a personal computer of the consumer.”
The Court finds that none of the three satisfy the machine prong of the test . . . there is no reason to read “facilitator” as a machine such as a computer. Indeed, the patent specification suggests the contrary: the schematics in the patent specification depict the facilitator as a person. Moreover, the ‘545 patent explains that the facilitator may “communicate through . . . telephony, facsimile, courier, mail or even person-to-person meeting.” The specification makes it clear, therefore, that the ‘545 patent is not aimed at a computer-specific application; it is a broad claim to the concept of exchanging media for advertisement viewing.

Neither does the “Internet” recitation save the patent. First, this Court agrees with the District Court in the Northern District of California that held the Internet is not a machine. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (“[T]he Internet is an abstraction.” “One can touch a computer or a network cable, but one cannot touch ‘the internet.’”).

Finally, the mere act of storing media on computer memory does not tie the ‘545 invention to a machine in any meaningful way. Since Plaintiff does not argue this point, the Court will not address it in detail. It suffices to say, however, that the argument would have been too farfetched and hence futile.
"Transform an Article" Prong:
There can be little dispute that the ‘545 patent does not transform an article. . . . None of the patent claims disclose a transformation. . . . [T]he mere transfer of data from one memory disk on one computer to another memory space in a second computer is not “transformation of article” under § 101. And the parties have not pointed out a case that held otherwise.  That is not surprising: the nature of the computer memory does not vary based on what is stored in it.  And even if storing content on a computer memory constituted transforming an article, Plaintiff’s argument would still fail because such “transformation” is merely incidental to the ‘545 patent claims.
Read/download a copy of the opinion here (link)

6 Comentários:

Step Back said...

Thank goodness for tech savvy, scientifically rational judges being abundantly available on our Federal benches (/not end-of-sarcasm, but rather only its beginning):

"First, this Court agrees with the District Court in the Northern District of California that held the Internet is not a machine. CyberSource Corp. v.
Retail Decisions, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (“[T]he Internet is an abstraction.” “One
can touch a computer or a network cable, but one cannot touch ‘the internet.’”)."

What? Are you f***ing kidding me? The Internet is an "abstraction"? You mean all those electrons that come streaming into my home computer originate from an "abstraction" and then transmute into the physical realm! Holy Batman. Stop the presses and call in the physics professors. A wormhole has been discovered in the reality-fantasy time-space continuum and it has been so discovered by no less than a Federal court. Surely, the grand unification theory is to be handed down very shortly from the same august bench. (/real end of sarcasm)

Anonymous said...

Gobbleygook is not one of the designated areas of patentable subject matter.

MaxDrei said...

They don't present it as such, but judges are now assessing compliance with 101 by asking themselves the simple question, whether the claimed subject matter is a contribution to the "useful arts".

Methods of trading (regardless whether using coloured glass beads, money or put options) were of course already notoriously ubiquitous when the Constitution was written, and were seen at that time as unambiguously NOT within the ambit of the "useful arts".

But which present day judge is foolhardy enough to pronounce that "trading" is "not useful"?

patent litigation said...

I'm glad the court ruled the way it did. This seems to be exactly the kind of so-called "business method" patent that is nothing more than a means of "organizing human behavior," which is not patent-eligible. Vague though Bilski may have been, at least it drew a clear enough line that the courts should no longer be tied up with patent litigation over non-inventions such as this one.

Step Back said...


The degree of your gladness is irrelevant to the question of whether the court decision has a rational underpinning.

The court opined that this thing called the "Internet" is an "abstraction".

That is troubling to all the scientifically literate people out there who know that this thing called the "Internet" is composed of real servers, real wires, real hard drives, etc. The court has a world view that is completely out of synch with reality. Such is troubling for modern times where our way of life depends on correct understandings of complex technology.

Anonymous said...

I Like the Advertising and marketing.

Powered By Blogger


This Blog/Web Site ("Blog") is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. Use of the Blog does not create any attorney-client relationship between you and Peter Zura or his firm. Persons requiring legal advice should contact a licensed attorney in your state. Any comment posted on the Blog can be read by any Blog visitor; do not post confidential or sensitive information. Any links from another site to the Blog are beyond the control of Peter Zura and does not convey his, or his past or present employer(s) approval, support, endorsement or any relationship to any site or organization.

The 271 Patent Blog © 2008. Template by Dicas Blogger.