Summarize, Analogize, and Euthanize (SAE): the Federal Circuit’s standard patentable-subject-matter process.

In today’s Nantworks v. Niantic case (nonprecedential), the Federal Circuit killed two patents directed to data analysis/manipulation by using its normal SAE process. The case involved two patents: the ‘518 (mapping augmented-reality (AR) objects and rendering them on a display) and the ‘051 (incorporating visual objects into a digital representation of an environment surrounding an AR device). The district court had granted judgment on the pleadings (‘518 patent) and summary judgment (‘051 patent).

For the ‘518 patent, at step one, the court summarized the claims as determining a user’s location, determining relevant information to give the user, and displaying that content. The court analogized this summary to IBM v. Zillow (limiting and coordinating the display of information based on user selection) and Sanderling v. Snap (rules to load digital image branding functions to users when they are in particular geographic locations are directed to the abstract idea of providing information based on meeting a condition, e.g., matching a GPS location). The court also found the claims could be performed using a pencil and paper (citing PersonalWeb). The court dismissed a technological advantage argument because it was unclaimed. At step two, the court euthanized the claims by finding that the patent owner’s purported inventive concept was part of the abstract idea.

For the ‘051 patent, the court summarized the claims as “a system to determine information (i.e., a context) about the environment and then alter the presence of a relevant AR object based on the environment.” The court analogized the claims to Uniloc (the “process is directed to an ‘abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.'”), Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (“‘[T]ailoring content based on the viewer’s location’ is a ‘”fundamental … practice long prevalent in our system….”‘”), Mobile Acuity (claims comparing images while considering location data are directed to an abstract idea), and Sanderling (“claims directed to an abstract idea that use computers as ‘a tool to identify when a condition is met and then to distribute information based on satisfaction of that condition.'”). At step two, the court disregarded expert testimony on unconventionality because (1) the features were unclaimed, (2) the opinions were conclusory, or (3) the opinions pertained to overcoming a rejection during prosecution.

This case is a great example of the Fed. Cir. using its normal SAE process for 101. Recently, I’ve written about some other cases where the court seemingly skipped the analogize step because the claims were functional and went straight to the euthanize step. Also, this is yet another data analysis/manipulation claim set being struck down.