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 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

© 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.