No Patent-Eligibility for “Identifying and Characterizing Errant Electronic Files”

Case:  Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., No. 2:14-cv-220 (W.D. Pa. Aug 4, 2016)

Result: Rule 12 motion to dismiss granted based on invalidity of claims of U.S. Patent 7,757,298 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Patent: U.S. Patent 7,757,298, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Identifying and Characterizing Errant Electronic Files.”  Representative claim 1 recites:

A computer-implemented method for identifying and characterizing stored electronic files, said method comprising:

under control of one or more configured computer systems:

selecting a file from a plurality of files stored in a computer storage medium, wherein selecting the file is performed according to at least one of:

selecting the file based on the size of the file by determining whether an aggregate size of plural identically-sized files exceeds a predetermined threshold;

selecting the file based on whether content of the file matches a file type indicated by a name of the file; or

selecting the file based on whether the file comprises data beyond an end of data marker for the file;

generating an identification value associated with the selected file, wherein the identification value is representative of at least a portion of the content of the selected file;

comparing the generated identification value to one or more identification values associated with one or more of a plurality of unauthorized files; and

characterizing the file as an unauthorized file if the identification value matches one of the plurality of identification values associated with the unauthorized files.

Abstract Idea (Alice Step 1): “identifying and categorizing files based on a set of predetermined criteria.”  The claims were directed to screening files for illicit content like pornography.  Representative claim 1, the court explained, could

be boiled down to four fundamental steps: (1) selecting a file; (2) generating a unique value corresponding to the file; (3) comparing that unique value to a bunch of previously generated values that correspond to different types of illicit files; and (4) marking the file for deletion or other treatment if its assigned value matches a known one.

Inventive Concept (Alice Step 2): The court found none:

that the claims recite specific computer-implemented steps is not enough to supply an inventive concept. . . .  The steps specified by Intellectual Ventures (selecting files based on file size, a mismatch between the content and file type, the existence of data beyond the end of a data marker within the file, and the match of a specific identification value; generating a specific identification value; and determining if that value matches another value) are generic functions, even if performed by a computer. . . .  Selecting files based on identifiers and matching different files/identifiers is just what computers do. There is nothing inventive about it.

Upcoming Webinar

In the webinar, Bryan Hart will discuss the upcoming Supreme Court case Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, which threatens to end the inter partes review procedure for examining and invalidating issued patents. Bryan wi…Register

Subscribe