IP Law Daily, PATENT—D. Ariz.: Language Technologies’ patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft dismissed, (Apr 1, 2024)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., LL.B.

Plaintiff’s asserted patents were found ineligible for protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

The federal district court in Arizona granted Microsoft Corporation's motion to dismiss a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Language Technologies Incorporated (LTI), ruling that the plaintiff’s US patent nos. 7,069,508 (the ’508 patent) and 7,346,489 (the ’489 patent) were ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. §101. However, the court allowed LTI leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days (Language Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., March 29, 2024, Collins, R.).

Background. Owned by LTI, both the asserted patents describe innovative methods aimed at improving text readability and comprehension by analyzing and formatting text based on linguistic, visual, and psychological factors. The ’508 patent outlines a system incorporating a neural network or an expert system that utilizes a comprehensive library of text data to analyze text, determine phrase indicators, and format the text based on these indicators. The ’489 patent mirrors these concepts, focusing on phrase determination in text to enhance reading efficiency.

In its lawsuit, LTI alleged that Microsoft's “Bling FIRE Tokenizer,” a software component integral to Microsoft's Bing search engine, infringes on the asserted patents by employing methods for text analysis and formatting outlined therein. Microsoft filed the instant motion to dismiss, claiming that the asserted patents were “abstract mental processes with generic computer technology” and thus ineligible for patent protection.

Patent eligibility. Claim 23 of the ’508 Patent was deemed representative for the patent eligibility analysis due to its similarity to other claims within the asserted patents and a mutual agreement between the parties.

The court applied the two-step test outlined in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) for the patent eligibility analysis. The Alice test requires determining whether the patent claims are directed to an abstract idea and, if so, whether the claim elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application by adding an "inventive concept" that goes beyond the abstract idea itself.

Abstract idea. LTI contended that its patents for analyzing and formatting text based on linguistic, visual, and psychological variables were specific, novel applications of technology, not abstract ideas. In contrast, Microsoft argued that the patents merely covered general processes of manipulating text based on rules of grammar and style, processes that could be performed by the human mind or with basic computer assistance, thus falling within the realm of abstract ideas. The court concurred with Microsoft, finding that the patents at issue were directed to abstract ideas, as they essentially described generic computer implementation of longstanding linguistic concepts without presenting a specific technological solution or improvement.

Inventive concept. LTI argued that its patents embodied a unique method of text analysis and formatting that represented a significant improvement over existing techniques, thus containing an inventive concept that made them eligible for patent protection. Microsoft countered by stating that the patents did not introduce any technological innovation beyond the abstract idea of text manipulation; they merely applied a computer to perform generic operations.

The court sided with Microsoft, concluding that the patents did not contain an inventive concept that transformed the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. Finally, the court concluded that the patents lacked a novel application or a specific improvement in computer or technology fields, merely invoking computers as a tool to execute an abstract idea, and thus failed to meet the criteria for patent eligibility under the Alice framework.

The Case is No. 4:23-cv-00520-RCC.

Attorneys: Mariel Talmage (McKool Smith PC) for Language Technologies Inc. Daniel J. Goettle (Baker & Hostetler LLP) for Microsoft Corp.

Companies: Language Technologies Inc.; Microsoft Corp.

Cases: Patent ArizonaNews