IP Law Daily, PATENT—N.D. Cal.: Bluebonnet fails to assert patent infringement claims against Pandora, (Sep 12, 2022)

By Patricia K. Ruiz, J.D.

Tailoring products to fit taste is a long-prevalent practice and is one of the building blocks of human ingenuity that itself cannot be patented.

While three allegedly infringed patents capture the core of a good business idea, they are directed to an abstract idea and lack an inventive concept, rendering them invalid, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has ruled. The court granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings by Pandora Media, LLC, and denied as moot its motions for leave to file an amended answer and for summary judgment (Bluebonnet Internet Media Services, LLC v. Pandora Media, LLC, September 7, 2022, Chhabria, V.).

Bluebonnet Internet Media Services, LLC, alleged Pandora infringed three of its patents, each of which describes essentially the same computer system for generating media playlists based on a user’s rating, with certain claims further describing functions for sharing the playlists with another user. Bluebonnet's patent claims describe a system for tailoring media playlists based on a person’s preferences. A playback interface streams media from a server to a device, where the user can enter ratings. The rating system stores the ratings in a database, and a playlist generator automatically and dynamically generates playlists based on the ratings.

Abstract idea. Abstract ideas are not patentable, as a patent on an abstract idea would monopolize the “building blocks of human ingenuity.” Abstract ideas include fundamental, long-prevalent practices and well-established methods of organizing activity, as well as the generic tailoring of products based on information known about an individual customer. The court found that the focus of the patents remains an abstract idea, despite being applied to the somewhat narrow context of computer-based media playlists. Tailoring products to fit taste is a long-prevalent practice and is one of the building blocks of human ingenuity that itself cannot be patented. Implementing that abstract idea with computers does not impart patent eligibility, the court reasoned.

Purely functional and generic computer components. The court found unpersuasive Bluebonnet’s assertion that the patents describe “a complex, multitiered networked system comprised of at least five networked hardware components,” noting that the recitation of purely functional and generic computer components does not make the focus of the claims less abstract. While Bluebonnet lists five separate hardware components, the claims themselves do not require more than two devices—one user device and a remote server to stream media, receive and store ratings, and generate playlists. When playlists are shared, another user’s device is also required. The court found these to be functional and generic computer subsystems merely marking out the steps of implementing an abstract idea. The court further found that creating and generating playlists based on user ratings is an abstract idea.

No inventive concept. The court concluded that, taken individually, the claims do not provide an inventive concept but describe only the basic steps of streaming media, rating media, generating a playlist, and sharing a playlist. If there is no legally sufficient inventive concept, the court held, it is unnecessary to decide whether that concept was well-understood, routine, or conventional. The “inventive concept” inquiry does not make the first application of an abstract idea patentable. Despite Bluebonnet’s factual assertion that the claimed system was not well-understood, routine, or conventional at the time it was created, the court found no inventive concept that adds significantly more to the abstract idea.

The case is No. 3:21-cv-08294-VC.

Attorneys: Brian Boerman (Sheridan Ross PC) for Bluebonnet Internet Media Services, LLC. Bryan A. Kohm (Fenwick & West LLP) for Pandora Media, LLC.

Companies: Bluebonnet Internet Media Services, LLC; Pandora Media, LLC

Cases: Patent CaliforniaNews