Federal Circuit IP

Broadband v. Amazon

By Xiang Li Published September 18, 2024

Case No. 23-1107, Precedential, (Fed. Cir. Sept. 3, 2024)

Dyk, Reyna, Stark

Facts/Background:

  • Broadband sued Amazon alleging patent infringement. Amazon sought summary judgment that the asserted claims are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  District court agreed with Amazon.  Federal Circuit affirmed.
  • Two patent families (‘026 and ‘825) at issue. The ‘026 family is directed to an Internet-connected digital device, configured to obtain and present to the subscriber an electronic program guide as a templatized video-on-demand display.  The ‘825 family is directed to a method for dynamic adjustment of an individualized electronic program guide where the adjustment is based at least in part on individual viewer consumption of video-on-demand programs on a subscriber TV system.

Issue:  Are the claims patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101?

Holding:  No.

Analysis: 

‘026 family:

  • The claims are directed to automatically creating an electronic program guide by receiving metadata and organizing the display of video content in the program guide based on that metadata. The claims do not recite an improved structure or function of a program guide, but rather, are directed to arranging content in a particular order, which is not a sufficient technological solution to a technological problem, but rather a results-oriented abstract idea.
  • The three elements argued by Broadband, (i) generating displays automatically, (ii) the content management system, and (iii) the templates used for displaying the contents, all do not transform the claims, because automation of an abstract idea does not transform the idea, and the content management system as well as the templates are generic, routine and well-understood.

‘825 family:

  • The claims are directed to the abstract idea of collecting and using viewing history data to recommend categories of video content. The claims recite multiple functions in the abstract, without disclosing how these functions are achieved.  The claims are analogous to “targeted advertising,” which have been repeatedly found abstract.
  • The three elements argued by Broadband, (i) generating displays with categories arranged based on relevance, (ii) creating new categories to encompass highly relevant content, and (iii) identifying a viewer using a log-in step, all do not transform the claims, because features part of an abstract idea do not transform the idea, and the log-in step is well-understood, routine, and conventional.

Takeaways:

  • Methods and systems for automatically analyzing, categorizing and displaying data, that do not rely on an improved or unconventional structure, are likely not patent eligible.