"The district court, taking claim 1 as exemplary, found at Alice step one that claim 1 of the patents was "directed to the abstract idea of sharing content using a unique identifier," and at Alice step 2, that "[w]hether taken individually or as an ordered combination," the claims contain no inventive concept because they merely recite 'well understood, routine and conventional activities, identifiers and components, such as servers and clients.'"
"Q Technologies argued that the district court's findings were erroneous because its analysis of claim 1 "ignores express limitations requiring location determination and proximity-based notification, which instead direct the claims to a specific, location-based file-sharing method rooted in real-world technological processes." But the CAFC agreed with the district court that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, explaining that"
The CAFC affirmed the Western District of Texas' grant of summary judgment that Q Technologies' three content-sharing patents are patent-ineligible. The patents are titled "Systems and Methods for Content Sharing Using Uniquely Generated Identifiers." The district court found claim 1 directed to the abstract idea of sharing content using a unique identifier and found no inventive concept at Alice step two, citing conventional components such as servers and clients. Q Technologies argued the claims require location determination and proximity-based notification, but the CAFC held that using location or proximity merely limits when or with whom content is shared and remains abstract.
Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]