IP Law Daily, PATENT—N.D. Cal.: Network data transmission patent not invalid for being directed to an abstract idea, (Jan 30, 2024)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

The patent, which claimed a method for data transmission allowing real-time broadcasting of audio and video, addressed a problem in the prior art with a specific technological improvement.

Amazon.com was not entitled to judgment on the pleadings based on the abstract nature of a patent asserted against it, the U.S. District Court in San Francisco has held. The patent taught an improvement to existing technology, not merely the broad idea of data transmission (BSD Crown, Ltd. v. Amazon.com, Inc. , January 29, 2024, Orrick, W.).

BSD Crown, Ltd. (BSD) was the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,389,473 (the ’473 patent), which claimed a process for real-time transmission of video and audio broadcasts using common, existing server and network infrastructure rather than the dedicated hardware of the prior art. BSD brought suit for infringement against Amazon.com, Inc. and other Amazon entities (collectively, Amazon). Amazon moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the ’473 patent was invalid for being directed at the abstract idea of data transmission. The court applied the two-step Alice test.

Abstract idea. Amazon argued that the patent was framed in broad language and claimed the abstract idea of transmitting data. The court found, however, that while the patent did contain broad language to describe the state of the prior art and the general idea of the invention, what it actually claimed and taught was a particular technological method for achieving real-time broadcasts with equipment that could not previously accomplish that task. Because it taught how to perform the solution to a technical problem, the ’473 patent was not directed to an abstract idea.

Inventive concept. Noting that it did not need to address the inventive concept step because the patent was not directed at an abstract idea, the court addressed it in the alternative and indicated that if the patent were directed at an abstract idea it would still not be invalid because it contained a specific technological method improving upon that abstract idea in a transformative way.

The court denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The Case is No. 3:23-cv-00057-WHO.

Attorneys: Francisco Arturo Villegas (Villegas & Cefo LLP) for BSD Crown, Ltd. Stefani Elise Shanberg (Perkins Coie LLP) for Amazon.com, Inc.

Companies: BSD Crown, Ltd.; Amazon.com, Inc.

Cases: Patent CaliforniaNews