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

November 17,2025

The district of Delaware recently denied a defendant’s partial motion to dismiss pre-suit willful infringement from the litigation, finding instead that the allegations taken as a whole were sufficient to support pre-suit willfulness at the pleading stage. Specifically, the court found that the allegations as to the defendant’s involvement in a related foreign opposition proceeding and participation in the relevant industry were accompanied by detailed factual support that sufficiently pleaded willful infringement for the pre-suit period.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 14, 2025

The Ninth Circuit recently reversed a district court’s decision to strike a plaintiff’s trade secret claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) at the discovery stage. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit made clear that under the DTSA, whether a party defined their trade secret with sufficient particularity is a question of fact that generally does not lend itself to resolution in the absence of at least some discovery. This ruling contrasts with the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), which requires a party to define their trade secrets with reasonable particularity before commencing discovery.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a summary judgment ruling of invalidity, holding that the district court erred in applying preclusive effect to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s unpatentability findings regarding other claims in the same patent. In doing so, the Federal Circuit reiterated that issue preclusion does not apply where the prior factual determinations were made under a lower standard of proof.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 3, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently clarified the requirement for work disclosed in a reference to qualify as “by another” under pre-AIA Sections 102(a) and (e), holding that there must be complete inventive identity between the information disclosed in the asserted reference and the inventors named on the relevant patent. 

...

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.