Q Technologies v. Walmart (Fed. Cir.) (nonprecedential)

The Fed. Cir. yesterday issued a conclusory, patentable-subject-matter opinion under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Q Technologies v. Walmart (nonprecedential). The court basically just agreed with the district court in finding the claims patent ineligible with little, if any, explanation/analysis. The lesson to be learned here is that if a contested claim can be characterized as directed to something already considered to be an abstract idea by the court, then that claim better have some additional, very significant limitations, e.g., tying it to a technological improvement. I have compiled a pretty exhaustive “forbidden list” of abstract ideas which I’ll post soon.

The case involves three patents (sharing a common specification) directed to location-based online content sharing using unique identifiers. The patent owner had argued that the district court ignored “express limitations requiring location determination and proximity-based notification, which … direct the claims to a specific, location-based file-sharing method rooted in real-world technological processes.” The court’s full step-one analysis was to agree with the district court that the exemplary claim was directed to the abstract idea of sharing content using a unique identifier by matching the unique identifier with a location, which “does not claim a technological improvement.” The court further noted that the use of location or proximity “merely limits when or with whom content is shared, which does not render the claims any less abstract….” Beyond this, the court cited to Beteiro (holding claims abstract at step one where they recite generic, result-focused steps for exchanging information and permitting or denying an activity based on user location, reflecting a longstanding economic practice implemented with conventional computer functions).

At step two, the patent owner argued that the use of location and proximity information was novel, at least creating a genuine issue of material fact to preclude summary judgment. The court again simply agreed with the district court, concluding that “reliance on location information and a purported ‘hybrid architecture’ … does not transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter, as the claims do not recite any nonconventional implementation or improvement in computer functionality itself.”

Here, the court quickly disposed of the patents by agreeing with the district court and stating conclusions. The court didn’t even reproduce the representative claim at issue. I looked it up and it is a 38-line, method claim with 7 elements (10 if you count the separately set off “wherein” clauses). The claim explains the processing at a server and two clients, including where the unique identifier is generated, what it is, and how the location determination is made. So, if a claim can be summarized as being on the abstract idea forbidden list, it can be readily struck down.