By Fritz Klantschi
Download vCard
On November 13 the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling (Gaelco S.A. v. Arachnid 360, LLC, 293 F.Supp.3d 783 (N.D. Ill. 2017) (“Gaelco”)) that patent claims directed to a system and method for remotely refereeing dart games were invalid under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice test. The independent claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,361,083 (the “083 patent”) were directed to a remote monitoring or refereeing method for one or more dart machines where at least one refereeing center receives multimedia captured from the dart machines for evaluating whether a player complies with the rule of play and transmitting the results. That is, the claims were directed to collecting information, analyzing the information and displaying the results.
The Alice test is a two-step process for determining whether claims recite patent-eligible subject matter, and is based upon a 2014 Supreme Court decision that had a dramatic effect on the validity of so-called software patents and business-method patents. Hundreds of patents have been invalidated under Section 101 of the Patent Act. The first step requires the court to determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S.Ct. 2347 at 2355, 189 L.Ed.2d 296 (2014). “[C]ourts ‘compare claims at issue to those claims already found to be directed to an abstract idea in previous cases.’” Gaelco at *789 (citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The District Court found that the ’083 patent claims (directed to collecting information, analyzing the information and displaying the results) to be abstract-idea processes under the first step of the Alice test. Gaelco at *790.
The second step of the Alice test requires the court to “examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2357. The District Court found that the ‘083 patent’s claims recited conventional uses of conventional technology (the Internet, cameras, dart machines and a display) and thus do not rise to an inventive concept. Gaelco at *794. Further the steps of the ‘083 patent claims are recited in an ordinary order which similarly does not rise to an inventive concept. Id. at *795. Still further, claiming improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer is not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Id. at *796. The District Court found that “the asserted claims do not contain an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application under § 101.” Id.