Post-Alice Decision on Software Patents, Digitech Image v. Electronics for Imaging, 2014
In Digitech Image v. Electronics for Imaging, decided by the Federal Circuit on July 11, 2014, claims were held to be invalid as non-statutory in view of 35 U.S.C. 101. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision.
This case concerned U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415 directed to a device profile and a method for creating a device profile within a digital image processing system. The district court concluded that the asserted claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
A representative apparatus claim of this software patent is as follows:
A device profile for describing properties of a device in a digital image reproduction system to capture, transform or render an image, said device profile comprising:
first data for describing a device dependent transformation of color information content of the image to a device independent color space; and
second data for describing a device dependent transformation of spatial in- formation content of the image in said device independent color space.
A representative method claim of this software patent is as follows:
A method of generating a device profile that describes properties of a device in a digital image reproduction system for capturing, transforming or rendering an image, said method comprising:
generating first data for describing a device dependent transformation of col- or information content of the image to a device independent color space through use of measured chromatic stimuli and device response characteristic functions;
generating second data for describing a device dependent transformation of spatial information content of the image in said device independent color space through use of spatial stimuli and de- vice response characteristic functions; and
combining said first and second data in- to the device profile.
Digitech argued that a device profile is subject matter eligible because it is “hardware or software within a digital image processing system” and exists as a tag file appended to a digital image. The Federal Circuit stated that Digitech’s position is not supported by the claim language, which does not describe the device profile as a tag or any other embodiment of hardware or software. The claims’ only description of the device profile is that it comprises “first data for describing” color information and “second data for describing” spatial information.
The Federal Circuit stated that the claims at issue here were even broader than the claim in Nuijten.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court.