District Court Finds Claims on Linking Data Objects over the Internet Patent Ineligible

Jan 8, 2015

Reading Time : 1 min

A California court has granted summary judgment invalidating claims of four patents related document linking technology as patent ineligible abstract ideas under the Supreme Court’s I decision. Bascom sued Facebook and Linkedin in 2012 on patents relating to methods for publishing, distributing, relating and searching document objects on computer networks. The patents claimed methods that allowed users to establish relationships between document objects located on the Internet and maintain link directories. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice, the defendants filed motions for summary judgment of patent invalidity under § 101. Applying the two­step Alice test, the court agreed with defendants that establishing relationships between documents is a centuries­old concept that can also be performed by the human mind. The court ruled that Bascom’s patents describe an abstraction having no particular concrete or tangible form. Finding the Federal Circuit’s Ultramercial decision instructive, the court ruled that “allowing users to generate relationships between document objects and storing those relationships separately from the document objects simply describes the abstract idea of creating, storing and using relationships between objects.” According to the court, “establishing relationships between document objects and making those relationships accessible is not meaningfully different from classifying and organizing data.” The court further compared Bascom’s patents to other recently invalidated software patents. Evaluating the claims under step two of the Alice patent eligibility test, the court ruled that Bascom’s patents failed to include any inventive concept. The court rejected Bascom’s proffered expert testimony as conclusory, and held that Bascom’s patents require nothing beyond a generic computer. The court decided that computerbased limitations recited in the claims failed to demonstrate an “inventive concept” that transforms Bascom’s claims into patentable subject matter.

Bascom Research LLC v. Facebook Inc., No. 3:12­cv­06293 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2015) (Illston, J.).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

February 24, 2026

The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice because the allegations used a form of “shotgun pleading.” The court explained that a shotgun pleading includes those where every count incorporates every preceding paragraph into each cause of action, and that dismissal of such pleadings was required under Eleventh Circuit precedent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 20, 2026

The Federal Circuit recently addressed whether the PTO must conduct notice‑and‑comment rulemaking before issuing instructions that guide how the Board should exercise discretion at the institution stage of IPRs. The court held that no such rulemaking is required. Instructions to the Board regarding its use of the Director’s delegated discretionary authority not to institute review are merely general statements of policy exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking.  

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 18, 2026

The District Court for the District of Delaware recently invalidated claims directed to a panoramic objective lens for lack of enablement, holding the claims impermissibly recited a single element in means‑plus‑function form. Under § 112, ¶ 6, “[a]n element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function….” By its plain terms, the statute permits means‑plus‑function claiming only in the context of a “combination.” In other words, a claim may not consist solely of a single means‑plus‑function element. Claims drafted as a single means are invalid for lack of enablement as a matter of law.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 13, 2026

In an ANDA litigation, the District of Delaware recently denied the defendants’ motion to compel the production of correspondence between the plaintiffs’ testifying expert and a third-party analyst who had performed experiments and provided data used by the testifying expert. The court found that the scope of material sought by the motion was overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case.

...

Read More

© 2026 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.