On January 25, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled claims directed to improved display interface for cell phones was patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 in Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. LG Electronics, Inc.[1] This case represents the second precedential one of the year where claims have been found patent-eligible by a Federal Circuit panel.
The facts are as follows. Core Wireless sued LG Electronics for patent infringement, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,713,476 (‘476) and 8,434,020 (‘020). The patents disclose improved display interfaces for electronic devices will small screens. Core Wireless alleged infringement of claims 8-9 of the ‘476 patent, and claims 11 and 13 of the ‘020 patent. Claims 8-9 are dependents of claim 1, which recites:
- A computing device comprising a display screen, the computing device being configured to display on the screen a menu listing one or more applications, and additionally being configured to display on the screen an application summary that can be reached directly from the menu, wherein the application summary displays a limited list of data offered within the one or more applications, each of the data in the list being selectable to launch the respective application and enable the selected data to be seen within the respective application, and wherein the application summary is displayed while the one or more applications are in an un-launched state.[2]
(Emphasis added.)
Claims 11 and 13 are dependents of claim 1, which recites:
- A computing device comprising a display screen, the computing device being configured to display on the screen a main menu listing at least a first application, and additionally being configured to display on the screen an application summary window that can be reached directly from the main menu, wherein the application summary window displays a limited list of at least one function offered within the first application, each function in the list being selectable to launch the first application and initiate the selected function, and wherein the application summary window is displayed while the application is in the an un-launched state.[3]
(Emphasis added.)
The district court found claim 1 of ‘476 to not be an abstract idea, and noted “even if claim 1 were directed to an abstract idea, it would still be patent eligible at least because it passes the machine-or-transformation test.”[4] During trial, disputes over claim term scope for terms “un-launched state” and “reached directly” were decided by the judge as per the O2 Micro test.[5] The district court ruled that “un-launched state” was defined as “not displayed” and “reached directly” defined as “reached without an intervening step.”[6] The jury found all asserted claims infringed and not invalid, and the district court further denied LG’s motions J.M.O.L. of noninfringement and anticipation.
The Fed Circuit panel consisted of Judges Moore, O’Malley, and Wallach, with Judge Moore writing for the majority.
On the issue of patent-eligibility, the panel first started its analysis with the Alice test, first, whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. Second, if so, then the claim elements are examined if it contains an inventive concept that will transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.[7] The asserted claims in Core Wireless are directed to an improved user interface for computing devices, and are not merely an abstract idea.
Although the generic idea of summarizing information certainly existed prior to the invention, these claims are directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices. Claim 1 of ‘476 . . . requires “an application summary that can be reached directly from the menu, specifying a particular manner by which the summary window must be accessed . . . . These limitations disclose a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user, rather than using conventional user interface methods to display a generic index on a computer.[8]
The panel emphasized that while the ideas existed before Core Wireless’ patents, the claims of ‘476 and ‘020 are directed to improvements over the state of the art, and addressed problems specifically found in the field of the art, namely the problem of small screens of most mobile phones which because of data and functionality divided the screen into multiple layers or views, creating visually cumbersome issue for the user.
On the issue of anticipation, under 35 U.S.C. §102, the panel held that the Blanchard cited reference did not anticipate ‘476 or ‘020. Blanchard teaches a display screen for mobile phones providing for an arrangement of dynamically-varied user information based on the space on a small mobile display screen. It discloses a hierarchical menu and sub-level menus which the user could make selections. The panel did not find LG’s arguments of anticipation convincing. Once a patent is presumed valid, invalidity must be proved by clear and convincing evidence by the opposing party. The only evidence proffered by LG was an expert whose testimony did not rise to the level of overwhelming authority, in part because part of his testimony was impeached during trial.
On the issue of infringement, the panel held that because the claim language, the specification itself, and the prosecution history all supported the district court’s construction, it found in favor of the district court’s construction of “un-launched state” and “not displayed.”[9]
This case is significant, in part, because it is the second consecutive precedential case of 2018 dealing with §101 patent-eligibility that was found in favor of patent-eligibility. This could be a harbinger for future §101 cases due to be heard before the Federal Circuit because it provides a level of stability in the §101 regime after several years post-Alice where cases were deemed patent-ineligible.
[1] 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018); aff’g No. 2:14-cv-911, 2016 WL 4596118 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 3, 2016).
[2] Id. (slip op. at 3).
[3] Id. (slip op. at 3-4).
[4] Id. (slip op. at 4). See also MPEP 2106 (“The Alice/Mayo two-part test is the only test that should be used to evaluate the eligibility of claims under examination. While the machine-or-transformation test is an important clue to eligibility, it should not be used as a separate test for eligibility, but instead should be considered as part of the “significantly more” determination in the Alice/Mayo test”).
[5] See O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tec. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“when the parties present a fundamental dispute regarding the scope of a claim term, it is the court’s duty to resolve it.”).
[6] Core Wireless, supra (slip. op. at 4).
[7] Id. (slip op. at 6-7). See also Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).
[8] Id. (slip op. at 9).
[9] Id. (slip op. at 19).