District Court Granted Summary Judgment of Invalidity Because the Patent Recited a Patent-Ineligible Abstract Idea Executed in a Generic Digital Video Camera

Mar 17, 2022

Reading Time : 3 min

Contour IP Holdings, LLC v. GoPro, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-4738-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Contour IP Holdings, LLC sued GoPro for infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 8,890,954 and 8,896,694. The patents are directed to point-of-view digital video cameras. A representative claim recites such a camera—generally comprising four elements: a lens; an image sensor configured to capture light propagating through the lens and produce video image data; a wireless connection protocol device configured to send image content to a portable computing device; and a camera processor configured to receive the video image data from the sensor—generates first and second image streams, receives control signals from the computing device and adjusts settings of the video camera based on the control signals.

The court analyzed eligibility using the Supreme Court’s two-step Alice framework. In step one, a court determines whether the claims are “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014). If they are, the court proceeds to step two and considers “the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id.

Addressing step one, the court cited Federal Circuit precedent stating that claims reciting a mechanical device, such as a camera, may nonetheless be directed to an abstract concept, and instructing that the analysis focuses on “what the patent asserted to be the focus of the claimed advance over the prior art.” TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc., 978 F.3d 1278, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The proffered advance over the prior art was that the device creates two video streams, one lower and one higher resolution, and transmits the lower resolution stream to a portable computing device while saving the higher resolution stream. A further stated advance is that the camera is configured to receive control signals from the computing device, which can adjust its settings.

The court found that this proffered advance is “directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke[s] generic processes and machinery.” Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The abstract idea is creating and transmitting video at two different resolutions and adjusting the video’s settings remotely. The court determined that receiving, generating, storing and transmitting video are abstract concepts. The court found that the claims described the implementation in “purely functional terms” and did not recite any “technical requirements” or “particular hardware” other than the generic “lens and image sensor,” generic “wireless connection protocol device” and generic “camera processor” to execute the abstract idea.

Addressing step two, the court decided that the elements of the claim did not transform the nature of the claim into something patent-eligible because “the claim only recites functional, ends-oriented language and there is no indication that the physical components are behaving in any way other than their basic, generic tasks.” The court did not find any “additional feature” showing that the claim is “‘more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the’ abstract idea.” Contour relied on certain Bluetooth technology disclosed in the specification, arguing that it shows “Contour had to make changes to the firmware for the processor” in a manner that had never been done before. The court, however, found that none of this is claimed, and that “Contour instead claimed a broader universe of any technology that performs its abstract idea so long as it meets the minimal criteria of its generic elements.”

Practice Tip

Patent Owners should avoid describing and claiming the advance over the prior art in purely functional terms, in a result-oriented way that amounts to encompassing the abstract solution no matter how implemented. Instead, Patent Owners should describe and claim technical details for tangible components in the claimed system, showing that such components are technologically innovative and not generic. For computer-implemented inventions, this may include a specific set of computer digital structures to solve a specific computer problem.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

May 30, 2025

A district court recently dismissed a patent infringement complaint for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), finding that the storage and distribution of products from an Amazon warehouse was not sufficient to establish that warehouse as a regular and established place of business in the district.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 27, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a District of Delaware finding of non-infringement in an ANDA litigation due to the patentee’s clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope during prosecution. Specifically, the court held that statements made during prosecution of a parent application before the asserted claims were allowed amounted to a prosecution disclaimer that extended to subsequent patents in the family. In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected an attempt by the patentee to resurrect the claim scope through a unilateral, self-serving statement made in later applications in the family.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the related statutory context.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

The USPTO Director vacated the board’s decision to institute inter partes review based on an erroneous application of the Fintiv factors. Specifically, the Director found that the board placed too much emphasis on Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, and not enough emphasis on the investment in the parallel litigation. Weighing the factors as a whole, the Director determined that institution should be denied.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

In an institution decision following the USPTO’s withdrawal of its Fintiv Memo, the board addressed discretionary denial of an IPR under Fintiv in view of a parallel ITC investigation. The board noted it would not consider the now-rescinded June 2022 memo from then-director Vidal which instructed that the PTAB would not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv when the request is based on a parallel ITC investigation. The board conducted a Fintiv analysis in view of the ITC investigation, but ultimately determined that discretionary denial was not warranted in this particular situation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 23, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same patent unpatentable because the PTAB applied a lower burden of proof than what is required to invalidate claims in district court.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 7, 2025

The Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer plaintiff’s first-filed declaratory judgment action based on defendant’s later-filed patent infringement suit in Wisconsin.  Though suit was seemingly imminent when defendant advised plaintiff it might be infringing defendant’s patents, plaintiff responded by requesting a licensing agreement in lieu of litigation. The court found that plaintiff’s action was not anticipatory forum-shopping litigation because plaintiff only filed suit after defendant neglected to respond to its licensing offer.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.