Court Tosses Out Bogus Patent Used Against FindTheBest

from the abstract-ideas dept

We've been covering the ridiculous lawsuit by patent troll Lumen View against FindTheBest.com. When we last checked in, Lumen View was trying to get a gag order on FindTheBest and its CEO to get them to stop talking about the case. Last week that failed miserably, with the court saying:
The plaintiff does not come close to carrying the burden of justifying imposition of a gag order. The plaintiff first explains that its motion is predicated on Federal Rule of Evidence 408, which restricts the admission of settlement negotiations into evidence. That argument is meritless. Rule 408 is a rule of evidence. It is inapposite where, as here, the question is not whether material will be admitted into evidence in court but whether a party may discuss certain matters in public.
That was just the warmup, though, because now the court has invalidated the patent itself (US Patent 8,069,073), saying that it's unpatentable subject matter as an "abstract idea." The ruling relies on the Supreme Court's Bilski ruling and the super confusing CAFC ruling in CLS Bank v. Alice Corp.
Applying the principles of Benson, Flook, Dieher, and Bilski, along with what guidance can be wrought from Alice, it is evident that Claim 1 of the ‘073 patent claims an abstract idea and does not qualify as a “process” under Section 101. The ‘073 patent claims the idea of bilateral and multilateral matchmaking using a computer in the context of a financial transaction or an enterprise. It is preemptive in the broadest sense. And its only real limitation –- the use of a computer -- constitutes mere post-solution application of an abstract idea to a common context. The patent must be invalidated under any of the above described Supreme Court precedents as well as under either the Judge Laurie or the Judge Rader methodology in Alice.
It then goes into an almost astounding amount of detail as to why the patent is invalid. Basically, from whatever direction you look, the patent never should have been granted, and the court makes that pretty clear. A few choice quotes:
There is no inventive idea here. Having two or more parties input preference data is not inventive. Matchmakers have been doing this for millennia. Nor is an unspecified closeness of fit process an inventive idea. It is merely a mathematical manifestation of the underlying process behind matchmaking: determining good matches. Nothing in the ‘073 patent evinces an inventive idea beyond the idea of the patent holder to be the first to patent the computerization of a fundamental process that has occurred all through human history.
And, later, a quote that highlights how just asking a computer to do something doesn't make that computer a specialized machine:
Merely directing a computer to perform a function does not transform the computer into a specialized computer. Such a principle would lead to the absurd result of allowing the patenting the computerized use of even the most basic abstract ideas. Given the ubiquity of computers in modern life, adopting such a principle would have enormous preemptive effect. Nothing in Section 101 or the precedents interpreting it allow a party to monopolize the building blocks of innovation in a computerized world.
We'll see if Lumen View appeals, but so far it's been shown to be way out of its depth here. And, of course, it's still facing racketeering charges from FindTheBest over the manner in which it attempted to troll the company. Finding the patent invalid can't be helpful in trying to claim that Lumen View wasn't shaking down FindTheBest...




Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Nov 22nd, 2013 @ 7:16pm

    Oh please let them appeal

    So far they've received a stunning loss in court, and had the patent they were using to shake companies down invalidated in pretty much every way, I really want to see what they can lose next.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 22nd, 2013 @ 7:28pm

    I'm hoping FindTheBest sticks with the counter-attack and ends up with a nice troll-skin rug.

    It seems we need to make a few noisy examples out of these sleazeballs.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Christenson, Nov 22nd, 2013 @ 7:37pm

    Can you spell FRIVOLOUS?

    As in so obviously not patentable that counsel should have known better?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 22nd, 2013 @ 8:09pm

    Ronald J. Riley just hates it when due process is enforced.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Tom Gallagher, Nov 23rd, 2013 @ 5:42am

    101 v. 103

    It would seem that the proper basis for declaring this patent invalid is under 103 (obviousness) rather than 101 (utility). Courts (even SCOTUS) often confuse these two laws and doing so simply muddy the jurisprudence needed to make clear decisions about patentability.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Nov 23rd, 2013 @ 6:18am

    Patents should require a working physical model.

    To rule out "methods" or software crap like this in one clear statement. As was done up to 1870's or so, and for good reason.

    ) Require working physical model. This is the key test.
    ) Means test applicants: it IS a different era here, as The Rich these days not only don't require gov't protection, but to be kept from using gov't as a weapon.
    ) Forbid transfer of patents.
    ) Entirely forbid corporations from owning patents.

    As for case of several independent inventors: depending on the scale of the invention: either toss the patent entirely because arose often, or fractionate it. (The market can help show deserved fraction.) -- BUT a race to be first is still likely helpful to societal progress, so don't eliminate entirely.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 23rd, 2013 @ 7:09am

    Good news, everyone.

    Merely directing a computer to perform a function does not transform the computer into a specialized computer. Such a principle would lead to the absurd result of allowing the patenting the computerized use of even the most basic abstract ideas.


    I find this to be very good news!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Baldaur Regis (profile), Nov 23rd, 2013 @ 8:29am

    Re: Good news, everyone.

    Indeed.

    "...on the internet" is no longer a unique qualifier.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 23rd, 2013 @ 2:01pm

    Dictating what you can or can not code, are programmers happy about this?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 23rd, 2013 @ 2:25pm

    Re:

    Taking an extreme leap of faith, I will assume you are not a troll, but merely completely confused... The court has not in any way told any programmer what he or she can or cannot code. Rather it has told a patent abuser that their abusive patent is invalid and thus programmers are free to program the (no longer) protected idea as they choose, without fear.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    JEDIDIAH, Nov 23rd, 2013 @ 4:54pm

    Anonymous and Confused.

    No. It is the patent troll that is trying to tell me what I can or cannot code. It is the bogus patent that allows a patent troll to claim ownership of something so trivial that I might have replicated it as an undergraduate.

    It is patents that allow someone to assert ownership over someone else's work and to effectively prevent them from using their own code.

    It's the scanner troll that's telling me that I can't pipe the results of "scan_document" into "email_document" without paying a hefty toll.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    RyanNerd (profile), Nov 24th, 2013 @ 7:51am

    Re:

    Dictating what you can or can not code, are programmers happy about this?
    I'm a programmer and they can kiss my shiny metal...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 25th, 2013 @ 1:52am

    Re:

    u mad bro

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Nov 25th, 2013 @ 5:58am

    Re: Oh please let them appeal

    The higher the appeal, and subsequent rejection, the better the precedents that get set for future cases.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Nov 25th, 2013 @ 5:59am

    Re: Can you spell FRIVOLOUS?

    As in so obviously not patentable that the USPTO should have known better.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Nov 25th, 2013 @ 6:06am

    Re: Re: Good news, everyone.

    > "...on the internet" is no longer a unique qualifier.

    Ah, but "...on an iPhone", still makes something old into something patentable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    Niall (profile), Nov 25th, 2013 @ 6:12am

    Re: Re: Re: Good news, everyone.

    But... but... rounded corners! Because no other smartphone had those before Apple!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Pragmatic, Nov 25th, 2013 @ 7:39am

    Re: Re:

    +1 internets for referencing Futurama.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This