Federal Circuit IP
Contour v. GoPro
Case No. 22-1654, Precedential, (Fed. Cir. Sept. 9, 2024)
Prost, Schall, Reyna
Facts/Background:
- Contour sued GoPro for infringing its patents directed to a point-of-view (POV) digital video camera. GoPro sought summary judgment that the asserted claims are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. District court agreed with GoPro. Federal Circuit reversed and remanded.
- The asserted claims are directed to a camera comprising a wireless connection device, which allows users to see a video on a remote device simultaneously as it is being recorded by the camera. Essentially, the camera is configured to generate in parallel two video streams, high quality and low quality. The low quality one will be streamed to the remote device through the wireless connection device, thereby allowing real time viewing of the video on the remote device. Users can thus adjust the settings of the camera through the remote device based on what they see.
Issue: Are the claims patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101?
Holding: Yes. The claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Alice step one.
Analysis:
- At Alice step one, “focus of the claimed advance over the prior art” should be examined, specifically, whether the claims are directed to “a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology” rather than “a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea.”
- Here, the claims at issue “require specific, technological means—parallel data stream recording with the low-quality recording wirelessly transferred to a remote device—that in turn provide a technological improvement to the real time viewing capabilities of a POV camera’s recordings on a remote device.” As construed, the claims do not cover other ways that a camera processor might generate multiple video streams, such as creating them in sequence.
Takeaways:
To mitigate the risk of 101 issues, consider disclosing and claiming a limited, particular way to perform the claim-recited function or achieve the claim-recited result.