Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018)

By Michael Borella --

As patent-eligibility stands in 2018, it can be difficult to determine whether a graphical user interface (GUI) with an innovative layout and/or functionality meets the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101.  On one hand, a GUI is almost by definition fundamentally tied to computer operation, and arguably has no non-computer analog.  On the other hand, a GUI that merely displays data in a non-specific layout is likely going to be viewed as a generic technical environment or just extra-solution activity.  In the Federal Circuit, recent cases addressing the eligibility of GUIs have found those claimed at a high level to be ineligible (e.g., Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.), while a much more detailed claim was found to be eligible, albeit in a non-precedential opinion (Trading Technologies Int'l v. CQG Inc.).

So the question remains -- what level of detail should be recited in a GUI claim to clear the § 101 hurdle?  While we don't have a clear answer, this case provides another data point.

Core Wireless brought an action against LG in the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,713,476 and 8,434,020.  LG moved for summary judgment, asserting that the claims were ineligible under § 101, but the District Court denied the motion.  LG appealed.

As an example, claim 1 of the '020 patent recites (formatted for clarity):

1.  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.

The Supreme Court's Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l case set forth a two-part test to determine whether claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under § 101.  One must first decide whether the claim at hand is directed to a judicially-excluded law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea.  If so, then one must further decide whether any element or combination of elements in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exclusion.  But generic computer implementation of an otherwise abstract process does not qualify as "significantly more."  On the other hand, a claimed improvement to a computer or technological process is typically patent-eligible.

The Federal Circuit began its analysis by determining that the claimed invention was an improved user interface, rather than the abstract idea of an index, as proposed by LG.  The Court noted that the claims "are directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices."  For instance, claim 1 requires "an application summary that can be reached directly from the menu," and specifies a particular manner by which the summary window must be accessed.  The Court additionally stated:

The claim further requires the application summary window list a limited set of data, "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."  This claim limitation restrains the type of data that can be displayed in the summary window.  Finally, the claim recites that the summary window "is displayed while the one or more applications are in an un-launched state," a requirement that the device applications exist in a particular state.  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.

The Court made analogies between this invention and those found patent-eligible in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., Thales Visionix Inc. v. U.S., Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., and Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc.  The claims in these previous cases were found to improve a computer or technological system, and were thus not abstract.

To back up its position, the Court looked the patents' specifications, observing that they teach of the problems associated with prior art interfaces, especially with respect to displaying information on devices with small screens.  Particularly, users had to "drill down through many layers to get to desired data or functionality [which] could seem slow, complex and difficult to learn, particularly to novice users."  In contrast, the claimed invention involves "[d]isplaying selected data or functions of interest in the summary window allows the user to see the most relevant data or functions without actually opening the application up."  Doing so "saves the user from navigating to the required application, opening it up, and then navigating within that application to enable the data of interest to be seen or a function of interest to be activated."

Based on this understanding, the Court concluded that the claim was not abstract, and that part two of the Alice test need not be carried out because the invention was eligible.

A recent trend in § 101 jurisprudence is the increasing importance of process over substance.  If a Federal Circuit panel reviews claims after they were construed by the district court, refuses to summarize the claimed invention at a high level in part one of the Alice inquiry, and considers the teachings of improvements set forth in the specification in parts one or two of this inquiry, it is much more likely that the Court will find the claims in question to be eligible.  Conversely, if the Court reviews claims that were not construed, summarizes these claims as a simple concept, and puts little emphasis on the specification, the opposite outcome is almost certain.

As we have seen different panels of Federal Circuit judges adopt both of these approaches, it is no wonder that patentees and attorneys have been shaking their heads when new § 101 cases come down, and that the USPTO has applied the law as inconsistently as the courts.  While the outcome in this particular case is reasonable and well-grounded in logic, it may be only a matter of time before the Federal Circuit realizes that it is suffering from an intra-circuit split and decides to hear a § 101 case en banc.

• Judge Moore wrote this opinion and was joined by Judge O'Malley.  Judge Wallach dissented in part with respect to a claim construction issue, but agreed with the majority on the patent-eligibility dispute.

Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018)
Panel: Circuit Judges Moore, O'Malley, and Wallach
Opinion by Circuit Judge Moore; opinion concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part by Circuit Judge Wallach

Comments

[skeptical]

"A recent trend in § 101 jurisprudence is the increasing importance of process over substance. If a Federal Circuit panel reviews claims after they were construed by the district court, refuses to summarize the claimed invention at a high level in part one of the Alice inquiry, and considers the teachings of improvements set forth in the specification in parts one or two of this inquiry, it is much more likely that the Court will find the claims in question to be eligible."

That sounds in the opposite - when substance is actually engaged, the process appears rational. It is when NO substance is engaged (and "Gisting" is prevalant), THAT is when you have "process over substance."

[Paul Cole]

Note that transformative improved functionality is apparent from the straightforward wording of the claim, which prompted the Court to enquire deeper and reach the favourable result that it did.

The legal inconsistency referred to in the article may be improved by more thoughtful and detailed claim drafting, as here.

[Martin H Snyder]

"Intra-circuit split" is a charitable phrasing. Philosophical chasm is more like it.

With millions of dollars in litigation hanging on utterly random District Court judge draws, the current situation is intolerable. Congress or the Supreme Court are totally abdicating their responsibilities to equity and justice on this topic.

[Gary Cohen]

Michael,

I commend you on your excellent insights regarding the current intra-circuit split - the tension between Amdocs and Two-Way Media is palpable: When should the claims be construed – before consideration of 101 issues or after? To what extent should the claims, for purposes of assessing patent eligibility, be considered in view of the specification.. Maybe the big takeaway here is that if the Federal Circuit could develop a consistent process for assessing patent eligibility in a way that makes sense to the patent bar, then the heightened level of kvetching about 101 jurisprudence (including calls for legislative clarification of 101) would effectively cease.

[skeptical]

Mr. Snyder's comment of "Philosophical chasm" is absolutely correct.

However - this is directly BECAUSE of the meddling of the Supreme Court and that body's actions BEYOND their responsibility.

Somehow calling for MORE of what started the problem (in order to reach any sense of "equity") guarantees only more of the same mess.

There is a quote, I believe attributed to Einstein, that fits here...

[Paul Cole]

@ Gary Cohen

As explained in a number of briefs that I have written, it is a matter of taking into account the "all elements" rule that applies to sections 102 and 103 into 101. Although there is room for interpretation of the claim, that is an inescapable requirement of patent law.

We then have the correct division of the Federal Circuit into correctly informed lawyers and ill-informed lawyers.

How can you make a decision about a claim when you do not truly understand what it means?