Aloft Media, LLC v. Oracle Corporation et al

Filing 149

MOTION for Summary Judgment OF INVALIDITY OF UNITED STATES PATENT NOS. 7,499,898 AND 7,593,910 by Halliburton Co., Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1, # 2 Declaration of Phillip Aurentz, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Text of Proposed Order)(Aurentz, Phillip)

Aloft Media, LLC v. Oracle Corporation et al

Doc. 149 Att. 1

EXHIBIT 1

Dockets.Justia.com

Exhibit 1
Precedent makes clear that an analysis under § 101 must "consider the invention as a whole," rather than dissecting the claim into elements. Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3230 (citing Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188); see also King Pharms., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1277 (stating "it is inappropriate to determine the patent-eligibility of a claim as a whole based on whether selected limitations constitute patent-eligible subject matter."). However, to foreclose any

argument that the novelty of the invention lies in a certain element of the claims, the following tables will illustrate how the elements of the claimed inventions, separately and collectively, are ineligible for patent protection under § 101. Claim 110 of the `910 Patent A computer program product embodied on a tangible computer readable medium, comprising: computer code capable of performing logic related to decisionmaking; Claim 14 of the `898 Patent A computer program product embodied on a tangible computer readable medium, comprising, comprising: computer code for causing execution of an application capable of performing decision logic, the application including at least one application that is a real estate-related application, a medical-related application, a corporate-related application, a product supplyrelated application, a service supplyrelated application, Application of Invalidating § 101 Principle This element is nonpatentable subject matter under § 101 because a claim which implies a method for solving a given type of mathematical problem, including determining an optimal value or combination, is nonstatutory subject matter. In re Schrader, 22 F.3d 290, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing Flook, 487 U.S. at 590).

the computer code belonging to an application which is a real estate-elated application, a medicalrelated application, a corporate-related application, a product supply-related application, a service supply-related application, or a financial-related

This element is nonpatentable subject matter under § 101 because it is "[l]imiting an abstract idea to one field of use...[does] not make the concept patentable." Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231.

Dallas 311173v1

application; computer code for retrieving first information from a storage;

or a financial-related application; computer code for retrieving first information from a database, per the application;

This element is nonpatentable subject matter under § 101 because the existence of a datagathering step is insufficient to convert an algorithm into a patent-eligible process under § 101 because it is merely insignificant postsolution activity. Bilski, 545 F.3d at 963 (citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 590). The addition of such a step imposes a "meaningless limit on a claim to an algorithm because every algorithm inherently requires the gathering of data inputs." Id. at 963 (citing In re Grams, 888 F.2d at 840). This element is nonpatentable subject matter under § 101 because the existence of a datagathering step is insufficient to convert an algorithm into a patent-eligible process under § 101 because it is merely insignificant postsolution activity. Bilski, 545 F.3d at 963 (citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 590). The addition of such a step imposes a "meaningless limit on a claim to an algorithm because every algorithm inherently requires the gathering of data inputs." Id. at 963 (citing In re Grams, 888 F.2d at 840). This element is nonpatentable subject matter under § 101 because a claim falls outside of the realm of § 101 when it is "directed essentially to a method of calculating" or "using a mathematical formula." Flook, 487 U.S. at 595. This element is nonpatentable subject matter under § 101 because it is merely extra-solution activity, or is not sufficiently transformative because a claim for "an improved method of calculation, even when tied to a specific end use, is unpatentable subject matter under § 101." Flook, 487 U.S at 595 n. 18.

computer code for receiving second information from a user utilizing a user interface;

computer code for receiving second information from a user utilizing a user interface, per the application;

computer code for processing the first information and the second information; computer code for generating a display, the display including at least one display that is a tornado diagram, a decision sensitivity display, a decision hierarchy display, an influence diagram, or a potential feasible hybrid theme.

computer code for processing the first information and the second information utilizing the decision logic; computer code for generating at least two of: a tornado diagram, a decision sensitivity display, a decision hierarchy display, an influence diagram, and a potential feasible hybrid theme.

Dallas 311173v1