On September 3, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rendered a significant decision in Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., which reaffirms the stringent approach towards patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The case concerned five patents owned by Broadband iTV (BBiTV), all related to video-on-demand technology and electronic program guides. BBiTV accused Amazon of infringing these patents, but Amazon successfully moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the patents claimed ineligible subject matter. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, applying the now well-established two-step Alice test.
Background of the Case
BBiTV asserted five patents against Amazon, with four of them being related (the '026 patent family) and one, the '825 patent, being separate but covering similar technology. The patents focused on electronic program guides used in video-on-demand systems. Essentially, the claims described systems where video content and metadata were uploaded to a server, which would automatically generate a hierarchically structured program guide to help users navigate video content on demand. The '825 patent added a method for personalizing these guides based on a user's viewing history, aiming to optimize the user experience by dynamically adjusting the program guide's structure.
The crux of Amazon’s defense was that all of the asserted claims were directed towards abstract ideas and, therefore, were not patent-eligible under § 101. The district court agreed with Amazon, ruling that both the '026 patent family and the '825 patent were directed towards abstract ideas, such as organizing content based on metadata and suggesting categories based on viewing history. BBiTV appealed the decision, but the Federal Circuit sided with Amazon, affirming the district court’s ruling.
The Alice Test in Action
The Federal Circuit's decision hinged on the application of the Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank framework, which is used to determine whether a patent claim is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. The Alice test has two steps:
Step One: Is the claim directed to an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
In this case, the court determined that the claims of both the '026 patent family and the '825 patent were indeed directed towards abstract ideas. The '026 patent family focused on the abstract idea of organizing content hierarchically based on metadata—a longstanding practice applied in the digital context. The '825 patent, on the other hand, was seen as covering the abstract idea of collecting user data (in this case, video viewing history) and using it to adjust the presentation of content—akin to what video store clerks had done for years when recommending films.
Step Two: Does the claim include an “inventive concept” sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application?
Here, the court found that BBiTV’s patents failed at step two as well. Although the claims involved servers, templates, and program guides, these elements were all deemed generic and conventional. The court noted that simply automating an abstract idea or applying it in a computerized environment does not render it patent-eligible. There was nothing in the claims that constituted an "inventive concept" that could transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The use of hierarchical structures, metadata, and templates were all seen as routine and conventional practices, insufficient to meet the requirements of § 101.
Accordingly, the Court held that “the ’025 patent family claims [and] the ’825 patent claims do not claim a technological solution to a technological problem.” Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.Com, Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 22270, *25 . Therefore, both patents failed steps of the Alice framework were determined to be directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Implications for Software and Tech Patents
The Broadband iTV case is a reminder of how challenging it can be for software and technology patents to survive scrutiny under § 101. The Federal Circuit's decision continues a trend where courts focus on whether a claim adds something "significantly more" than an abstract idea, especially in cases involving data organization, user interfaces, and content delivery systems.
Patent owners in the tech space should take heed of the court's analysis here. Merely incorporating conventional elements like servers or templates, or applying a well-known process in a digital context, may not be enough to secure patent eligibility. Applicants should aim to draft applications that highlight specific technical improvements or novel methodologies to avoid § 101 rejections.
- Shareholder
Brandon is a technology-first patent attorney with extensive experience in the complete patent lifecycle, from prosecution before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office through monetization and post grant challenges.
In his ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- Artificial Ingenuity: Is Generative AI the New 'Person of Ordinary Skill' in Patent Law?
- The Expiration of the After Final Consideration Pilot Program 2.0 (AFCP 2.0)
- Patently Unclear: Why Result-Oriented Claims Don’t Make the Cut Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
- Make Your Invention The Priority, What Track-1 Can Do For You!
- Navigating Final Rejections in Patent Prosecution: AFCP 2.0 vs. 37 CFR § 1.116
- A Clear POV on Patent Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. 101: Contour’s Claims Zoom Back Into Focus in Contour v. GoPro
- Understanding the Recent Federal Circuit Decision in Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. on Patent Ineligibility
- Federal Circuit Clarifies Obviousness-Type Double Patenting in Allergan v. MSN Laboratories: The Impact of Patent Term Adjustments on First-Filed Patents
- The Risks and Rewards of Using Open Source Software
- Don't Let Your Trade Secrets Walk Out the Door With Your Employees: Patent Them!
Archives
- November 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- October 2022
- August 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- June 2019
- April 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- October 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017