Post-Alice Decision on Software Patents, Ultramercial Inc. v. Hulu LLC, Federal Circuit 2014

HomeHistory of Software PatentsPost-Alice Decision on Software Patents, Ultramercial Inc. v. Hulu LLC, Federal Circuit 2014

Ultramercial sued Hulu, YouTube, and WildTangent in 2009 for infringement of a patent related to distributing copyrighted material over the Internet to a consumer at no cost in exchange for viewing an advertisement, with the advertiser paying for the copyrighted material.

WildTangent filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the claims were not statutory under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  The district court granted the motion.  The Federal Circuit reversed.  The Supreme Court vacated the decision and
remanded for consideration in view of its decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.  A unanimous panel of the Federal Circuit again held the claims to be statutory.  WildTangent petitioned for Supreme Court review.  The Supreme Court again vacated the Federal Circuit’s decision and remanded for consideration in view of its more recent decision in Alice v. CLS Bank.  Judge Rader, a voice of reason, had since resigned and Judge Mayer was appointed to take his place.

Claim 1 of the patent recites:

A method for distribution of products over the Internet via a facilitator, said method comprising the steps of:

  • a first step of receiving, from a content provider, media products that are covered by intellectual property rights protection and are available for purchase, wherein each said media product being comprised of at least one of text data, music data, and video data;
  • a second step of selecting a sponsor message to be associated with the media product, said sponsor message being selected from a plurality of sponsor messages, said second step including accessing an activity log to verify that the total number of times which the sponsor message has been previously presented is less than the number of transaction cycles contracted by the sponsor of the sponsor message;
  • a third step of providing the media product for sale at an Internet website;
  • a fourth step of restricting general public access to said media product;
  • a fifth step of offering to a consumer access to the media product without charge to the consumer on the precondition that the consumer views the sponsor message;
  • a sixth step of receiving from the consumer a request to view the sponsor message, wherein the consumer submits said request in response to being offered access to the media product;
  • a seventh step of, in response to receiving the request from the consumer, facilitating the display of a sponsor message to the consumer;
  • an eighth step of, if the sponsor message is not an interactive message, allowing said consumer access to said media product after said step of facilitating the display of said sponsor message;
  • a ninth step of, if the sponsor message is an interactive message, presenting at least one query to the consumer and allowing said consumer access to said media product after receiving a response to said at least one query;
  • a tenth step of recording the transaction event to the activity log, said tenth step including updating the total number of times the sponsor message has been presented; and
  • an eleventh step of receiving payment from the sponsor of the sponsor message displayed.

According to Alice, the two prong circular logic of Mayo is to be used to determine if claims are directed to statutory subject matter.  The first prong is to determine whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea.   If so, the second prong is to determine whether any additional claim elements transform the claim into a patent-eligible application that amounts to significantly more than the ineligible concept itself.  No definition has been provided by the Supreme Court as to when an idea is abstract.  Similarly, no definition has been provided as to what amounts to “significantly more.”

In this case, the court conceptualized the claim as relating distributing copyrighted material over the Internet to a consumer at no cost in exchange for viewing an advertisement, with the advertiser paying for the copyrighted material.  The court ignored details of the claim in considering the first prong.

According to the Federal Circuit, claim 1 provided an “ordered combination of steps reciting an abstraction — an idea, having no particular concrete or tangible form.”  In addition, “[t]he process of receiving copyrighted media, selecting an ad, offering the media in exchange for watching the selected ad, displaying the ad, allowing the consumer access to the media, and receiving payment from the sponsor of the ad all describe an
abstract idea, devoid of a concrete or tangible application.”  While the Court did state that “certain additional limitations, such as consulting an activity log, add a degree of particularity,” these limitations were insufficient to provide significantly more.

Further, even though some steps of the claim “were not previously employed in this art [that] is not enough — standing alone — to confer patent eligibility upon the claims at issue.”

This decision puts patent applicants in a difficult position.  Adding novel subject matter to a claim is not sufficient to render a claim statutory.

“Adding routine additional steps such as updating an activity log, requiring a request from the consumer to view the ad, restrictions on public access, and use of the Internet does not transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.”  Even though the claim recited use of the Internet, which is arguably a concrete, tangible system, the Court reiterated its reasoning from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., stating that “use of the Internet is not sufficient to save otherwise abstract claims from ineligibility under § 101.”

Further, the Federal Circuit held that Ultramercial’s claims failed both prongs of the machine-or-transformation test.  The only machine recited in the claims was the Internet, which is a “ubiquitous information-transmitting medium, not a novel machine.”  As for any sort of transformation elicited by the many steps of claim 1, the Court wrote that “manipulations of public or private legal obligations or relationships, business risks, or other such abstractions” are not transformations “because they are not physical objects or substances, and they are not representative of physical objects or substances.”

Consequently, all of Ultramercial’s claims were invalid.  The point of Alice seemed to be to allow courts to avoid a complicated novelty analysis if the only hardware in claims was a computer.  The reasoning seemed to be that adding a computer to a conventional process was insufficient to make the claim statutory.  However, in this case there was novelty in the claim that was ignored.

Adapting to this case would seem to require passing the machine or transformation test using more machines than are included in the Internet.