Electric Power Group (EPG) strikes again! 

In today’s Cascades Branding v. Aldi case (nonprecedential), the Federal Circuit once again used EPG to strike down a patent for reciting ineligible subject matter. I think this makes the 6th time since April that the Fed Cir has relied on EPG to kill patents under section 101. The technology at issue involves displaying images reflecting different brands on a user’s phone. Upon selecting a brand (with no other input), the phone displays a map of the surrounding area to show the user where that brand’s products can be purchased. Importantly, the claims were functionally drafted. At Alice step one, the court held that the claims were directed to “collecting geographic information about the location of a device and nearby stores…offering certain products…and displaying that information to the user….” Here it is: “[w]e generally hold claims directed to nothing more than collecting, analyzing, and displaying information, even when limited to a particular field…to be abstract.” (Citing to EPG.) The court then referred to EPG’s alternative use of striking down functionally drafted claims and stated “the claims here are substantively indistinguishable.” At Alice step 2, the patent owner argued that the claims recited an inventive step because the specification distinguished three prior art techniques. The court disagreed: “the highly generic functional steps…do not contain an inventive step beyond preexisting and conventional computer technology.” The court also stated, “whatever speed advantage…comes from conventional computer technology itself rather than any inventive step.”