Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in International Business Machines Corporation v. Zillow Group, Inc. et al., No. 2021 -2350 (Oct. 17, 2022).
IBM sued Zillow for patent infringement asserting several patents directed to graphical display technology. Zillow moved for judgment on the pleadings that certain asserted patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Among the challenged patents were the ’789 and ’389 patents. The ’789 patent describes a method for coordinated geospatial, list-based and filter-based selection, wherein a user draws a shape to select an area within a larger map display and the claimed system then filters and displays data limited to that area. The ’389 patent describes methods of displaying layered data on a map and using visual characteristics like color or opacity to allow objects in layers of interest to be emphasized while others are deemphasized. The district court granted Zillow’s motion as to these two patents, holding their claims were directed to abstract ideas and failed to recite an inventive concept. IBM appealed.
Applying the two-step Alice test for patent eligibility, the Federal Circuit affirmed, noting that for cases involving software innovations “improving a user’s experience while using a computer application is not, without more, sufficient to render” claims patent eligible. Addressing the ’789 patent first, the Court affirmed the district court’s determination that the claims were directed to an abstract idea because they merely address automation of manual processes using generic computers and employ result-oriented, functional language. Turning to Alice step two, the Court affirmed the district court’s determination of no inventive concept. The Court rejected IBM’s assertion that the “synchronization” or “user determined shape” limitations could qualify as inventive concepts. The Court explained that the claims did not explain how to perform the “synchronization” except to recite conventional computer components and that IBM had acknowledged reliance on a “user determined shape” to make selections was already known in the prior art. Turning to the ’389 patent, the Court held the claims were directed to the abstract idea of organizing and displaying visual information. Turning to Alice step two, the Court held the claims contained no inventive concept, noting that “[a]ny of the patent’s improved efficiency comes not from an improvement in the computer but from applying the claimed abstract idea to a computer display.”