Court Tosses Out Bogus Patent Used Against FindTheBest

from the abstract-ideas dept

Fri, Nov 22nd 2013 6:26pm — Mike Masnick

We've been covering the ridiculous lawsuit by patent troll Lumen View against FindTheBest.com. When we last checked in, Lumen View was trying to get a gag order on FindTheBest and its CEO to get them to stop talking about the case. Last week that failed miserably, with the court saying:

The plaintiff does not come close to carrying the burden of justifying imposition of a gag order. The plaintiff first explains that its motion is predicated on Federal Rule of Evidence 408, which restricts the admission of settlement negotiations into evidence. That argument is meritless. Rule 408 is a rule of evidence. It is inapposite where, as here, the question is not whether material will be admitted into evidence in court but whether a party may discuss certain matters in public.

That was just the warmup, though, because now the court has invalidated the patent itself (US Patent 8,069,073), saying that it's unpatentable subject matter as an "abstract idea." The ruling relies on the Supreme Court's Bilski ruling and the super confusing CAFC ruling in CLS Bank v. Alice Corp.

Applying the principles of Benson, Flook, Dieher, and Bilski, along with what guidance can be wrought from Alice, it is evident that Claim 1 of the ‘073 patent claims an abstract idea and does not qualify as a “process” under Section 101. The ‘073 patent claims the idea of bilateral and multilateral matchmaking using a computer in the context of a financial transaction or an enterprise. It is preemptive in the broadest sense. And its only real limitation –- the use of a computer -- constitutes mere post-solution application of an abstract idea to a common context. The patent must be invalidated under any of the above described Supreme Court precedents as well as under either the Judge Laurie or the Judge Rader methodology in Alice.

It then goes into an almost astounding amount of detail as to why the patent is invalid. Basically, from whatever direction you look, the patent never should have been granted, and the court makes that pretty clear. A few choice quotes:

There is no inventive idea here. Having two or more parties input preference data is not inventive. Matchmakers have been doing this for millennia. Nor is an unspecified closeness of fit process an inventive idea. It is merely a mathematical manifestation of the underlying process behind matchmaking: determining good matches. Nothing in the ‘073 patent evinces an inventive idea beyond the idea of the patent holder to be the first to patent the computerization of a fundamental process that has occurred all through human history.

And, later, a quote that highlights how just asking a computer to do something doesn't make that computer a specialized machine:

Merely directing a computer to perform a function does not transform the computer into a specialized computer. Such a principle would lead to the absurd result of allowing the patenting the computerized use of even the most basic abstract ideas. Given the ubiquity of computers in modern life, adopting such a principle would have enormous preemptive effect. Nothing in Section 101 or the precedents interpreting it allow a party to monopolize the building blocks of innovation in a computerized world.

We'll see if Lumen View appeals, but so far it's been shown to be way out of its depth here. And, of course, it's still facing racketeering charges from FindTheBest over the manner in which it attempted to troll the company. Finding the patent invalid can't be helpful in trying to claim that Lumen View wasn't shaking down FindTheBest...

FindTheBest Judge's Ruling (PDF)FindTheBest Judge's Ruling (Text)

Gov Uscourts Nysd 412511 51 0 (PDF)Gov Uscourts Nysd 412511 51 0 (Text)

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: patent eligibility, patent subject matter, patents, section 101
Companies: findthebest, lumen view

18 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

That One Guy (profile), 22 Nov 2013 @ 7:16pm

Oh please let them appeal
So far they've received a stunning loss in court, and had the patent they were using to shake companies down invalidated in pretty much every way, I really want to see what they can lose next.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2013 @ 7:28pm

I'm hoping FindTheBest sticks with the counter-attack and ends up with a nice troll-skin rug.

It seems we need to make a few noisy examples out of these sleazeballs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Christenson, 22 Nov 2013 @ 7:37pm

Can you spell FRIVOLOUS?
As in so obviously not patentable that counsel should have known better?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2013 @ 8:09pm

Ronald J. Riley just hates it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tom Gallagher, 23 Nov 2013 @ 5:42am

�101 v. �103
It would seem that the proper basis for declaring this patent invalid is under �103 (obviousness) rather than �101 (utility). Courts (even SCOTUS) often confuse these two laws and doing so simply muddy the jurisprudence needed to make clear decisions about patentability.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 23 Nov 2013 @ 6:18am

Patents should require a working physical model.
To rule out "methods" or software crap like this in one clear statement. As was done up to 1870's or so, and for good reason.

) Require working physical model. This is the key test.
) Means test applicants: it IS a different era here, as The Rich these days not only don't require gov't protection, but to be kept from using gov't as a weapon.
) Forbid transfer of patents.
) Entirely forbid corporations from owning patents.

As for case of several independent inventors: depending on the scale of the invention: either toss the patent entirely because arose often, or fractionate it. (The market can help show deserved fraction.) -- BUT a race to be first is still likely helpful to societal progress, so don't eliminate entirely.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2013 @ 7:09am

Good news, everyone.
Merely directing a computer to perform a function does not transform the computer into a specialized computer. Such a principle would lead to the absurd result of allowing the patenting the computerized use of even the most basic abstract ideas.

I find this to be very good news!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baldaur Regis (profile), 23 Nov 2013 @ 8:29am

Re: Good news, everyone.
Indeed.

"...on the internet" is no longer a unique qualifier.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2013 @ 2:01pm

Dictating what you can or can not code, are programmers happy about this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2013 @ 2:25pm

Re:
Taking an extreme leap of faith, I will assume you are not a troll, but merely completely confused... The court has not in any way told any programmer what he or she can or cannot code. Rather it has told a patent abuser that their abusive patent is invalid and thus programmers are free to program the (no longer) protected idea as they choose, without fear.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JEDIDIAH, 23 Nov 2013 @ 4:54pm

Anonymous and Confused.
No. It is the patent troll that is trying to tell me what I can or cannot code. It is the bogus patent that allows a patent troll to claim ownership of something so trivial that I might have replicated it as an undergraduate.

It is patents that allow someone to assert ownership over someone else's work and to effectively prevent them from using their own code.

It's the scanner troll that's telling me that I can't pipe the results of "scan_document" into "email_document" without paying a hefty toll.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RyanNerd (profile), 24 Nov 2013 @ 7:51am

Re:
Dictating what you can or can not code, are programmers happy about this?
I'm a programmer and they can kiss my shiny metal...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Nov 2013 @ 1:52am

Re:
u mad bro
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 25 Nov 2013 @ 5:58am

Re: Oh please let them appeal
The higher the appeal, and subsequent rejection, the better the precedents that get set for future cases.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 25 Nov 2013 @ 5:59am

Re: Can you spell FRIVOLOUS?
As in so obviously not patentable that the USPTO should have known better.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 25 Nov 2013 @ 6:06am

Re: Re: Good news, everyone.
> "...on the internet" is no longer a unique qualifier.

Ah, but "...on an iPhone", still makes something old into something patentable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 25 Nov 2013 @ 6:12am

Re: Re: Re: Good news, everyone.
But... but... rounded corners! Because no other smartphone had those before Apple!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pragmatic, 25 Nov 2013 @ 7:39am

Re: Re:
+1 internets for referencing Futurama.
[ link to this | view in thread ]