IP Law Daily, PATENT—D. Del.: Email software patents survive eraly Alice challenge, (Jun 7, 2024)

By Kevin M. Finson

Claims for an email system in highly regulated industries were not shown to be abstract because the party arguing for abstraction did not meet its burden.

A software company’s patent claims related to systems of controlling email messages in regulated industries were not shown to be abstract at the pleading stage, the U.S. District Court in Wilmington has held. The party asserting invalidity did not offer an abstract idea that fairly matched the patent claims (Veeva Systems Inc. v. Tact.Ai Technologies, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-01032-JFM (D. Del. June 5, 2024)).

Veeva Systems, Inc. (Veeva) was the owner of U.S. Patents Nos. 9,391,937 (the ’937 patent), 9,055,023 (the ’023 patent), and 11,501,313 (the ’313 patent), the first two of which were directed to a system for controlling emails sent from businesses in highly regulated fields, such as pharmaceutical companies to outsiders, and the latter of which was directed to a data visualization interface separate and distinct from the application programming language. Veeva brought suit for infringement against a competing software company, Tact.AI Technologies, Inc., which was purchased during the course of the litigation by Aktana, Inc. (Aktana). Aktana moved to dismiss on the ground that the asserted patents were invalid for being directed at an abstract idea and for failure to state a claim.

Abstract idea. The court pointed out repeatedly that Aktana misunderstood the requirements of the Alice test, which treats patent validity as something pseudo-jurisdictional to be shown by the patentee rather than as an affirmative defense which must be proven by the defendant. With regard to all of the asserted patents, the court found that Aktana had defined the “abstract idea” at which it claimed the patents were directed in extremely broad terms, such as “the abstract idea of preparing approved messages,” while completely ignoring the bulk of the claim language which laid out specific steps and particular software components. While Aktana argued that these claims were a smokescreen over the simple use of computers to perform actions long performed by human workers, the court found that Aktana did not show how they were a mere smokescreen. The claims appeared by their terms to be directed to technological improvements, not the use of generic computer components in conventional ways, and so the claims were not abstract at step one of the Alice test.

Failure to state a claim. Aktana argued that the complaint failed to state a claim against it specifically because the complaint referred only to Tact.AI products. The court found that the complaint properly and explicitly alleged that Aktana had integrated into its services and offered for sale those very same accused Tact.AI products.

The court denied the motion to dismiss.

The Case is No. 1:23-cv-01032-JFM.

Judge: Murphy, J.

Attorneys: Daniel M. Silver (McCarter & English, LLP) for Veeva Systems Inc. Bindu Ann George Palapura (Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP) for Tact.AI Technologies, Inc.

Companies: Veeva Systems Inc.; Tact.AI Technologies, Inc.

Cases: Patent DelawareNews