We review the district court's grant of summary judgment of ineligibility de novo. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. , 822 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016). II
We have found software-related patents eligible under both steps of the test Alice sets out. We found a patent to a particular improvement to a database system patent-eligible under step one in Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp. , 822 F.3d 1327, 1339–40, 2016 WL 2756255, at *8 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016). There, we found claim language reciting the invention's specific improvements to help our determination in step one of the Alice framework that the invention was directed to those specific improvements in computer technology.
We recently clarified that a relevant inquiry at step one is “to ask whether the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea.” See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2015–2044, 822 F.3d 1327, 1335, 2016 WL 2756255 (Fed.Cir. May 12, 2016). We contrasted claims “directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer” with claims “simply adding conventional computer components to well-known business practices,” or claims reciting “use of an abstract mathematical formula on any general purpose computer,” or “a purely conventional computer implementation of a mathematical formula,” or “generalized steps to be performed on a computer using conventional computer activity.”
On March 29, 2016, Plaintiff A Pty Ltd. appealed the Court's entry of final judgment and order granting Defendant judgment on the pleadings to the Federal Circuit. That appeal is still pending. On June 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed its motion for relief from final judgment with this Court, arguing that that the Court should grant the motion despite the pending appeal because of extraordinary circumstances raised by the Federal Circuit's recent opinion in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016). Plaintiff argues that Enfish changes the existing 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis on which this Court's prior ruling turned.
We reverse. Under Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp ., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and related authorities, we conclude, the claims at issue here are not directed to ineligible subject matter. Rather, we hold, the claimed advance is a concrete assignment of specified functions among a computer’s components to improve computer security, and this claimed improvement in computer functionality is eligible for patenting.
We review a grant of summary judgment under the law of the regional circuit. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. , 822 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Fifth Circuit reviews grants of summary judgment de novo.
As the Federal Circuit recently observed, "fundamental economic and conventional business practices are often found to be abstract ideas, even if performed on a computer." Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. , 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Crowdfunding is one such abstract, fundamental economic arrangement.
Plaintiff Rothschild and Defendants Geotab, Inc., GoFleet Corporation, Iler Group, Inc., and Quartix Inc. consented (Doc. Nos. 85, 86) to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love conducting all proceedings in this action and ordering entry of a final judgment (Doc. No. 119). All six remaining Defendants did not consent. Before the Court now is Plaintiff Rothschild Location Technologies, LLC's ("Rothschild") Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b) (Doc. No. 122). Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court's ruling in light of the Federal Circuit's decision in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016). Also before the Court is Rothschild's Motion for Leave to Supplement Rule 60 Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 126) in light of Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, et al, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2016).
We also ask whether the claims are directed to a specific improvement in the capabilities of computing devices, or, instead, "a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool." Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. , 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We previously have held claims focused on various improvements of systems directed to patent eligible subject matter under § 101.
In cases involving software innovations, this inquiry often turns on whether the claims focus on "the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities ... or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool." Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. , 822 F.3d 1327, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The '844 patent is directed to a method of providing computer security by scanning a downloadable and attaching the results of that scan to the downloadable itself in the form of a "security profile."