IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Digital technology patent holder’s infringement suit against Meta properly dismissed, (Sep 17, 2024)

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

Sole remaining claim of the ’291 patent deemed unprotectable as abstract idea; all other asserted patents’ claims previously invalidated in parallel IPR proceedings.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a federal district court's dismissal of a patent infringement case brought by Angel Technologies Group, LLC against Meta Platforms, Inc. and Instagram, LLC (collectively “Meta”). The appellate court found that the claims asserted by Angel, which relate to digitally tagging images, were ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment as to the sole remaining claim and dismissed Angel's appeal regarding other claims as moot, as those claims had been invalidated for obviousness in parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings (Angel Technologies Group, LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 22-2100 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 17, 2024)).

Background. The plaintiff/appellant, Angel Technologies Group, LLC, holds patents relating to digital image processing and tagging technologies. The defendant/appellee, Meta Platforms, Inc., is the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, operates social networking platforms, and provides services that allow users to share and tag images online.

The lawsuit involved four patents held by Angel: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,959,291 (’291 patent), 8,954,432 (’432 patent), 10,417,275 (’275 patent), and 10,628,480 (’480 patent). These patents share a common specification and claim various methods and systems for associating users with digital media, particularly digital tagging of users in images. Notably, claim 15 of the ’291 patent, which survived IPR proceedings, became the focus of this appeal.

Angel filed this lawsuit asserting that Meta had infringed its patents by incorporating similar digital tagging functionality in its platforms. Meta responded with a motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the claims in the asserted patents were directed toward abstract ideas and thus were not eligible for patent protection under § 101. The district court agreed with Meta and dismissed the case, finding that the patents were directed to the abstract idea of associating descriptive information with user identifiers, a well-established human activity that could be performed mentally or with a pen and paper. The court also determined that the claims did not include any inventive concept that could transform the abstract idea into a patentable invention. Angel appealed.

Patent ineligibility. The Federal Circuit, in reviewing the district court's decision, applied the two-step test established by the Supreme Court in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Under the first step, the court examined whether the claims were directed to a patent-ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea. The court found that claim 15 of the '291 patent, like the other claims in the patent family, was directed to the abstract idea of tagging users in digital media, a practice long performed in the physical world.

Citing PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 8 F.4th 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2021), the court held that merely implementing this idea in the digital realm using a computer system did not make it patent-eligible. The claim recited routine steps for tagging users in photos, such as providing a graphical user interface and storing associations between user and digital media identifiers. The court concluded that these steps could be performed mentally or with minimal computer assistance.

At the second step of the Alice test, the court analyzed whether the claim included an “inventive concept” sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Angel argued that its claims were inventive because they improved computer network functionality and were novel in the industry. The Federal Circuit disagreed, noting that the claimed steps were conventional and well-understood computer functions. Referencing Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the court pointed out that the claims used only generic computer components, such as a communications network, memory, and a graphical user interface, to implement the abstract idea. Using such conventional technology did not provide the necessary inventive concept to render the claim patentable.

Parallel IPR proceedings and mootness. During the pendency of the appeal, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found most of the claims in the asserted patents to be unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The time to appeal the PTAB decisions has expired. In light of the PTAB's final written decisions, Meta moved to partially dismiss Angel’s appeal as moot, arguing that there was no longer an active controversy regarding the invalidated claims.

The Federal Circuit granted Meta's motion, dismissing the appeal as to all claims except claim 15 of the '291 patent. The court emphasized that Article III of the Constitution requires a live controversy throughout all stages of litigation. With the PTAB's unappealable findings of invalidity, the remaining claims no longer presented such a controversy.

Conclusion. Thus, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that claim 15 of the '291 patent was ineligible for patent protection under § 101. It also dismissed the remainder of the appeal as moot due to the invalidation of other claims in the parallel IPR proceedings.

The Case is No. 22-2100.

Judge: Cunningham, T.

Attorneys: John Bruce Campbell (McKool Smith, PC) for Angel Technologies Group, LLC. Gabriel K. Bell (Latham & Watkins LLP) for Meta Platforms, Inc. and Instagram, LLC.

Companies: Angel Technologies Group, LLC; Meta Platforms, Inc.; Instagram, LLC

MainStory: TopStory Patent TechnologyInternet FedCirNews CaliforniaNews