District Court Granted Dismissal Because the Patent Recited a Patent-Ineligible Abstract Idea of Processing and Transmitting Data

Apr 7, 2022

Reading Time : 3 min

Plaintiff Magnacross LLC sued OKI Data Americas, Inc. for infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,917,304. The claim-at-issue recites a method of wirelessly transmitting data through a communications channel from at least two data sensors to a data processing means. The method includes the step of division of the channel into sub-channels having unequal data carrying capacities, and transmitting the data through the sub-channels from the data sensors, which require substantially different data rates for data transmission.

The court analyzed eligibility using the U.S. Supreme Court’s two-step Alice framework. In step one, the court determines whether the claims are “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014). If they are, the court proceeds to step two and considers “the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.”  Id.

Addressing step one, the court found that the claim “describes nothing beyond the division of the channel and allocating sensor data to sub-channels.” The court noted that the Federal Circuit has recognized that claims directed to gathering, processing and transmitting data are directed to an abstract idea; and the court determined that the claim is similar to claims held ineligible in Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In Two-Way Media, the claims recited a method of transmitting packets of information over a network with a series of abstract steps (“converting,” “routing,” “controlling,” “monitoring” and “accumulating records”) using “result-based functional language.”

The court found that, like in Two-Way, the claim recites functional language (“division,” “transmitting” and “allocating”) without any means for achieving the purported technological improvement and without any guidance on the kind of structure or how the division is to be achieved. The court reasoned that the claim is not directed to an improvement to computer functionality, but rather a generic process in which computers are used as a tool to improve efficiency. The court further noted that the specification fails to identify a specific improvement and, instead, generally offers improvements in relation to prior proposals in the field.

Addressing step two, the court found that the claim does not recite an “inventive concept” because it recites generic terms and routine functions. According to the court, the specification acknowledges that the claimed “data sensors” were known, and that the invention is not directed to a certain type of data or limited to any particular application. The court also found nothing in the specification describing the “communications channel” as anything other than conventional, or describing the division of the channel into sub-channels as inventive.

Magnacross argued that the claim solves a problem particular to wireless data transmission from multiple sensors with different data rate requirements by asymmetrically dividing and allocating data to a communications channel. The court, however, found that improving the efficiency of a process, rather than the functionality, does not confer patent eligibility. The court also noted that Magnacross conceded that the claim relates to “how to more efficiently use bandwidth to transmit data [from data sensors].”

Practice Tip: Patent Owners should avoid describing and claiming the advance over the prior art in purely functional terms, in a result-oriented way that amounts to encompassing an abstract idea. Instead, Patent Owners should describe and claim technical details for tangible components in the claimed system and how the functionality of those components has been improved, showing that such components are technologically innovative and not generic. In the data transmission field, Patent Owners should describe and claim technological improvements to components in particular applications, and avoid relying only on generic efficiency improvements.

Magnacross LLC v. OKI Data Americas, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-1959-M (N.D. Tex.).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

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.