Mobile Device Data Monitoring Patent Not Directed to Abstract Idea Under § 101

Oct 28, 2015

Reading Time : 1 min

Defendant, Zoho Corp., filed a summary judgment motion, arguing that the ’740 Patent was invalid under § 101, because it was directed to an abstract idea and fails to disclose any technological advance. Specifically, Zoho argued that the ’740 Patent claims are directed to “the disembodied idea of using symbols on a display to represent external information and updating these symbols as that information changes.”

Plaintiff countered that at the time the ’740 Patent was issued, the growth of mobile device usage led to a corresponding increase in the demand for rich information content; however, the inevitable space constraints on mobile devices “limit[ed] the richness of information content available to a user.” The ’740 Patent, as plaintiff argues, had “the specific technical objective of allowing status updates to be displayed more efficiently within the limited display screen of a mobile phone, pager, PDA or similar mobile device.”

In his holding, Judge Sparks held (without reasoning) that the ’740 Patent “does not embody an impermissibly abstract idea. Therefore, the court need not determine whether the claims contained an inventive concept sufficient to transform the allegedly abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.”

Versata Software, Inc. et al v. Zoho Corp., 1-13-cv-00371 (W.D. Tex. October 26, 2015, Order) (Sparks, J.).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

June 5, 2026

The Supreme Court unanimously held that for a complaint of induced infringement, a patent owner must allege that the accused infringer took affirmative, not passive, steps to encourage direct infringement. Thus, where a generic drug has a skinny label, to induce infringement of the carved-out patented use of the drug, the generic company must have taken steps that were designed to cause others to perform the patented use, not just steps that could cause such conduct.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 07, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois granted a summary judgment motion of no invalidity based on indefiniteness because the qualitative terms like “sufficiently slow” and “desired period of time” were definite when viewed in light of the surrounding claim language and specification.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 9, 2026

In the April 1, 2026 edition of the Official Gazette, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced a new procedural framework that permits patent owners to submit a limited, early response to a request for ex parte reexamination.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice for failing to plausibly allege patent infringement. The court found that the allegations of direct infringement were insufficiently pled where the images of the accused product included in the complaint did not appear to show a particular necessary element of the claims.

...

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.