IP Law Daily, PATENT—N.D. Cal.: Computer information processing system was directed to unpatentable abstract idea, (Aug 2, 2022)

By Deirdre Kennedy, J.D.

The system for processing information using autonomous computer processing cells did not improve upon computer functionality.

A patent claiming a method and apparatus for processing information in parallel using autonomous computer processing cells to perform tasks needed by a central processing unit was invalid for being directed at an abstract idea that lacked an inventive concept, the federal district court in San Francisco has held. The patent merely claimed a system that amounted to a method of organizing human activity. (Juniper Networks Inc. v. Swarm Technology LLC, August 1, 2022, Donato, J.).

Plaintiff Juniper Networks, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary, Apstra, Inc., (collectively, Juniper) sought a declaration of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,146,777 (the ’777 patent), U.S. Patent No. 9,852,004 (the ’004 patent), and U.S. Patent No. 10,592,275 (the ’275 patent) against defendant and patent owner Swarm Technology LLC (Swarm). Swarm filed counterclaims alleging that Juniper infringed the three patents. Juniper asked to dismiss the counterclaims on the grounds that all claims of the ’777 patent, ’004 patent, and ’275 patent were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.

The ‘004 and ‘275 patents. In an unrelated case pending in the District of Arizona, the ’004 patent and ’275 patent were determined to be invalid for lack of patent-eligible subject matter (Swarm Tech. LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 561 F. Supp. 3d 861 (D. Ariz. 2021)). The court dismissed Swarm’s infringement claims based on the patents, and stated that Swarm could file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, which Swarm did on October 20, 2021.

While Swarm in effect asked the current court to disregard the invalidation of the ’004 and ’275 patents, the court found good reason not to ignore the order and dismissed the counterclaims based on the ’004 and ’275 patents.

The ’777 patent. The ’777 patent was issued on September 29, 2015, and is assigned to Swarm. The patent is directed to a “method and apparatus for processing information in parallel using autonomous computer processing cells to perform tasks needed by a central processing unit” (CPU). The autonomous computer processing units are called “solidarity cells,” which can be “general- or special-purpose processors.” The solidarity cells also have “agents” which are “software modules” that can be dispatched to a task pool, populated by the CPU, to pick up tasks for the solidarity cell to complete. The patent states that this approach solves two problems in typical multiprocessing frameworks: that “a significant amount of the CPU’s processing time is consumed by managing the co-processing tasks,” and that “a co-processor will remain idle as it waits for a thread to be assigned to it by the CPU.”

Swarm did not object to taking up patent eligibility in a pleadings motion, but said that “factual disputes” precluded dismissal. The court noted, however, that any ostensible disputes were based on wholly conclusory allegations in the counterclaims and were not a bar to moving forward.

For the merits of the patent-eligibility question, the scope of patentable subject matter includes “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” The “purely functional nature of the claim confirms whether the patent is directed to an abstract idea, not to a concrete embodiment of that idea.” For the technology at stake here, the court must address whether the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea. If the patent is directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the second step is to look for an inventive concept.

Abstract idea. The claim here was drawn to the abstract idea of retrieving and completing tasks from a task pool. Processes are directed to an abstract idea where they are “the sort of process that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.” Juniper analogized the process to a scrum board—a tool frequently used in software development to keep track of tasks that need to be done, tasks in progress, and completed tasks. Such a “fundamental and long prevalent” practice is a quintessential abstract idea.

Swarm claimed that the ’777 patent was not directed to an abstract idea because it was directed to an improvement in how computers operate and computer efficiency. The court noted, however, that the idea here was not meaningfully different from the ideas found to be abstract in other cases before the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit involving methods of organizing human activity. While Swarm claimed that the ’777 patent teaches a way to reconfigure computer systems to function more efficiently, Swarm did not point to a specific improvement to computer technology identified in the ’777 patent. Instead, Swarm quoted language from the patent that the system “may be implemented retroactively on any computer or computer network having an operating system that may be modified or otherwise configured to implement the functionality described.” This fell short of teaching a specific improvement to computer technology, the court said.

Inventive concept. The court found no inventive concept that would save the ‘777 patent form ineligibility. Claim 1 of the ’777 patent recites a conventional ordering of functions—ordinary steps, performed in a conventional order, on conventional computer technology. While Swarm contended that its claim represented an inventive concept, listing out seven elements that Swarm believed were not well-understood, routine, or conventional, Swarm did not support this with any citations to the specification of the ’777 patent or to any allegations in the counterclaims, conclusory or otherwise, that supported its position. The court noted that Swarm’s brief was entirely devoid of any explanation for how these seven elements were not well-understood, routine, or conventional. The counterclaims themselves underscored the lack of plausible facts on this score, merely stating that each element was more than just “well-understood, routine, and conventional” steps known in the industry at the time, but the patent specifications failed to explain how such elements were unconventional.

Swarm further contended that it was not required to prove that its inventive concepts are unconventional, rather only to “properly allege that the claims recite more than well-understood, routine activities.” And that, the court noted, was where Swarm dropped the ball. Because it failed to plausibly allege, based on non-conclusory and factual statements, that the ’777 patent embodied an inventive concept, the court dismissed Swarm’s counterclaims.

The Case is No. 3:20-cv-03137-JD.

Attorneys: Alan Michael Fisch (Fisch Sigler LLP) for Juniper Networks Inc. Michael K. Kelly (Beus Gilbert PLLC) and Allan Steyer (Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP) for Swarm Technology LLC.

Companies: Juniper Networks Inc.; Swarm Technology LLC

Cases: Patent TechnologyInternet CaliforniaNews