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

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

IP Newsflash

December 5, 2025

District courts are split on whether a complaint can provide the required knowledge for post-suit indirect and willful infringement in that same lawsuit. Chief Judge Connolly in the District of Delaware recently confirmed that, consistent with his prior opinions, the complaint cannot serve as the basis for knowledge for either a claim of post-suit indirect infringement or a demand for willfulness-based enhanced damages in that lawsuit.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 3, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently held that a patentee acted as its own lexicographer to define a claim term even though it did not explicitly define the term. Rather, because the patentee consistently and clearly used two terms interchangeably to describe the same structural feature and did so in all of the embodiments in which the feature appeared, the patentee impliedly gave the term its own, unique definition.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 2, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently held an asserted patent was not entitled to its priority date because the priority application lacked written description support for the asserted claims. In so doing, the court explained that broad disclosures that do not provide reasonably specific support for narrower claims do not meet the written description requirement. The court also considered whether the inventor’s testimony showed they possessed the full scope of the claimed genus at the priority date or whether it was more likely the inventors first became aware of the claimed embodiments from public disclosures of the accused product.

...

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.