Federal Circuit Finds Another Software Patent Ineligible

Oct 13, 2016

Reading Time : 2 min

The court found that Claim 14 is representative and is directed to a network-based media system with a customized user interface, in which the system delivers streaming content from a network-based resource upon demand to a handheld wireless electronic device having a graphical user interface. Affinity asserted this patent against Amazon’s music system, which allows customers to stream music from a customized library.

First, the court affirmed that the patent is directed to the abstract idea of delivering user-selected media content to portable devices. Moreover, the claims are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combining the two.

The court rejected Affinity’s argument that wireless streaming of media was not routine, conventional or well-known because the patent did not describe any particular mechanism for wirelessly streaming content to a handheld device. Instead, the patent used functional claiming without providing any limiting detail that confined the claim to a particular solution to an identified problem. The purely functional nature of the claim confirms that it is directed to an abstract idea, not to a concrete embodiment of that idea.

The court also rejected Affinity’s argument that the claims’ limitation of a customized user interface proves they are not directed to an abstract idea. The court held that customizing content to a particular user is still abstract and analogized it to delivering different newspaper inserts for different neighborhoods.

Turning to the second step in Alice, the court affirmed that the claims do not provide an inventive concept. The claims are written in largely functional terms, such as claiming “a collection of instructions” that perform the functions of displaying a selection of available content on a graphical user interface and allowing the user to request streaming of that content. The court found this did not provide any technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over conventional computer and network technology. The broad claims were not directed to any specific configuration or any concrete way of employing a customized user interface.

Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 2015-2080 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23, 2016).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

December 18, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a $20 million jury verdict in favor of a patentee and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the patentee did not own the asserted patents at the time it filed suit and therefore lacked standing.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 17, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision finding claims that had been subject to an ex parte reexamination unpatentable. As a threshold issue, the court held that IPR estoppel under 35 USC § 315(e)(1) does not apply to ongoing ex parte reexaminations. Accordingly, the Patent Office did not err in continuing the reexamination after issuing final written decisions in co-pending IPRs.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 15, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s demand for enhanced damages based on willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, explaining that neither a demand for damages under § 284 nor an accusation of willful infringement amount to a claim for relief that can be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently denied a petition for a writ of mandamus that challenged the PTO Director’s reliance on “settled expectations” to discretionarily deny two inter partes review (IPR) petitions. In so doing, the court explained that, while it was not deciding whether the Director’s use of “settled expectations” was correct, the petitioner’s arguments about what factors the Director may consider when deciding whether to institute an IPR or post-grant review (PGR) are not generally reviewable and did not provide sufficient basis for mandamus review here.

...

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.