Federal Circuit Reverses Section 101 Ineligibility Determination of Error Correction Algorithm Patent

Nov 27, 2019

Reading Time : 2 min

In the underlying district court litigation, Koninklijke KPN (KPN) asserted U.S. Patent No. 6,212,662 (“the ’622 Patent”) against several defendants (“the Appellees”). The ’622 Patent covers an improvement to error detection systems used in data transmission. In the prior art, these systems would detect transmission errors by having the transmitting side of the system compute “check data” based on the underlying data to be transmitted and then send the check data as part of the transmission. This check data serves as a short-hand representation of the underlying data. The receiving side would then use the same method to also compute check data based off of the received underlying data and compare this with the check data that had been sent as part of the transmission. If the two check data segments did not match, then that would show that some portion of the transmission had been corrupted.

However, in some instances, the check data itself can be corrupted by certain functions, in which case, transmission errors go undetected. This is particularly problematic when the errors are “systematic” or repeat across several data blocks.

The ’622 Patent solved the systematic error problem by varying the way the check data is generated for different data blocks. By changing how the check data is generated for different data blocks, the inventors were able to reduce the likelihood that a systematic error would repeat itself in the check data and therefore, increase the likelihood that errors are detected.

The Appellees moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), arguing that all four claims of the ’622 Patent were invalid, because they were directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea under Section 101. The district court applied the two-step framework from Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), which determined that the claims were directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea with no saving inventive concept, and granted the motion. Specifically, at step one of Alice, the district court found that the claims were directed to the “abstract idea of reordering data and generating additional data.” More specifically, the district court found the claims fail to specify how the data is modified to accomplish the invention. As a result, the district court found at step two of Alice that the invention was not captured in the claims.

KPN appealed with respect to claims 2-4, and the Federal Circuit reversed. The court held that the claims “employ[] a new way of generating check data that enables the detection of persistent systematic errors in data transmissions that prior art systems were previously not equipped to detect.” Thus, the claims recite a “sufficiently specific implementation…of an existing tool…that improves the functioning of the overall technological process of detecting systematic errors in data transmissions.” The Federal Circuit concluded that “the appealed claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they sufficiently capture the specific asserted improvement in detecting systematic errors contributed by the inventors of the ’662 patent.”

Practice Tip: To survive the Alice analysis, the claims of this type must identify a specific solution that improves on or solves a problem in an existing technological process. Thus, Section 101 analysis should focus on whether claims describe specific improvements to the technological process, i.e., a new way of doing something, as opposed to just an improved result.

Citation: Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH, No. 2018-1863 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2019) (Dyk, Chen, and Stoll; opinion by Chen).

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.