Patent Claims Directed to Making and Sharing Videos Over a Social Network Dismissed As Subject Matter Ineligible

January 12, 2024

Reading Time : 4 min

Judge Wu in the Central District of California recently granted dismissal of patent infringement claims directed to generating and sharing video content over a social network because they are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. After deciding claim construction, the court held that the claims fail the Alice two-step framework. Under Alice step one, the court found that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of prompting a user to record and share content because the claimed steps involve generic actions without reciting any specific improvement to the claimed user interface or other computer technology. Under Alice step two, the court found that the claims lack an inventive concept because they are results-oriented and they do not recite any specific means of accomplishing the claimed results other than using existing, off-the-shelf computer technology.

Playvuu, Inc. v. Snap, Inc., No. 22-cv-6019 (C.D. Cal.).

Patent owner Playvuu sued Snap, alleging that Snap’s SnapChat App infringes U.S. Patent No. 10,931,911. Snap moved to dismiss the patent claim for subject matter ineligibility under § 101. The court deferred its ruling until after claim construction, where the court gave all unconstrued terms their plain and ordinary meaning. Representative claim 1 recites a method for generating and sharing audio/video content to a social network. The claimed steps generally include in relevant part:

initiating a content creating process; prompting a user to record content; prompting the user to select an audio composition; presenting the user with a record button; presenting the user with a selection of pre-recorded visual media content for use as a background, wherein the user is presented with an interface to selectively edit the selected content; providing playback of the audio composition during recording; generating recorded content based on the recording session by composing video captured during the recording session with the pre-recorded visual media content; displaying a preview that enables the user to change the timing or latency of the recorded content relative to the selected audio composition; selecting a privacy attribute for the recorded content; sending the recorded content to the host server; receiving a request to publish the recorded content; processing and encoding components of the recorded content to create a streamable video; and publishing the streamable video.

The court analyzed eligibility using the Supreme Court’s two-step Alice framework. In step one, a court determines whether the claims, in their entirety, are “directed to a patent-ineligible concept,” such as an abstract idea. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014). If they are, the court proceeds to step two—the search for an “inventive concept”—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. (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Lab’ys, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78-79 (2012)).

  1. Alice Step One

Addressing Alice step one, the court concluded that claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of prompting a user to record and share content using existing technology. The claim recites a method for “generating and sharing audio/video content to a social network,” and the recited steps only involve “generic actions.” The court also found that the claims do not disclose any new way to accomplish the known, claimed tasks (e.g., prompting, presenting, and providing), and the claims are directed to the results of those tasks, not the “how-to” of those tasks.

The patent owner argued that the claims recite an “innovative user interface.” The court determined, however, that neither the claims nor the specification include any detail suggesting disclosure of a new user interface providing a specific improvement to computer technology. Instead, the specification suggests that the claimed interface is a “black-box component” because it “can be any combination of hardware components and/or software agents” able to perform the claimed functions.

The court distinguished the claims from those in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In Core Wireless, the claims “recite a specific improvement over prior systems,” i.e., “a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user, rather than using conventional user interface methods to display a generic index on a computer.” In contrast, the court found that “the ʼ911 Patent does not provide specific requirements for the claimed user interface, such as a particular manner of use or display, restraint on the type of use or display, or requirements to exist in a particular state.” Also, the court found that the claims do not recite “specific structural elements” that might help illustrate an improved user interface.


2. Alice Step Two

Addressing Alice step two, the court concluded the claim lacked any inventive concept because the claims only describe using existing computer technology. The patent owner argued that the claims contain a “combination of specialized software for media generation and editing with a specific mechanism for transmitting it to a series of servers for distribution, according to a computerized privacy attribute set by the user.” The court disagreed because the claims are “results-oriented and suggest using off-the-shelf components … without providing specific requirements or specialized software for doing so.” The court also stated that the claimed abstract idea itself cannot supply the inventive concept.

The patent owner relied on Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018), to argue that step two presents a question of fact that precludes dismissal. The court, however, distinguished Berkheimer because the claims at issue there recited “non-abstract features of a digital asset management system that the specification described as unconventional improvements over conventional systems,” such that there was a genuine factual dispute over unconventionality. In this case, the court found that the patent owner had pointed to no such “non-abstract features” of the claimed method.

Practice Tip: Patent owners should avoid claiming generic tasks that are results-oriented, and instead claim a specific way to achieve those tasks, i.e., the “how-to” of those tasks. Patent owners should also describe and claim specific structural elements that are improvements over prior systems—black-box descriptions allowing for “any combination” of hardware and/or software may not be sufficient. In addition, patent owners should claim “non-abstract features” that can be identified in the claim when asserting inventiveness.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

August 11, 2025

In considering a motion to dismiss infringement claims for two related patents, the District of Massachusetts recently held that pre-suit knowledge of a “parent” patent, without more, is insufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge of the “child” patent for purposes of indirect and willful infringement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 8, 2025

Following a jury verdict finding trade secret misappropriation, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted-in-part a plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction to prohibit defendants from using plaintiff’s trade secrets. The district court further required defendants to reassign to plaintiff patents and patent applications that disclosed or were derived from plaintiff’s trade secrets as part of its equitable relief.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 6, 2025

In ruling on a recent motion to strike, a judge in the Eastern District of Texas permitted a damages expert to rely on a damages theory based on defendant’s “avoided costs,” holding that this theory did not run afoul of the “entire market value rule.”

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board’s analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal error and was not supported by substantial evidence. According to the court, the board applied a more exacting and improperly heightened nexus standard than is required by law for license evidence.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

A Northern District of California judge recently granted a motion to reconsider his summary judgment ruling that defendant was barred from raising certain “device art” due to IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). In the original ruling, the judge adopted the broader rule that IPR estoppel applies to device art that is “materially identical” to patents or printed publications that petitioners raised, or could have raised, in an IPR. Following that ruling, however, the Federal Circuit issued its Ingenico decision adopting the narrower view that IPR estoppel applies only to “grounds” based on patents and printed publications and not to device-based grounds. Citing Ingenico as a “change of law,” defendant moved for reconsideration of the court’s ruling, and the court granted the motion.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based on petitions advancing different constructions of the same claim term. The Director expressed concerns that permitting multiple petitions based on alternative claim constructions effectively circumvents word count limitations, strains board resources, and undermines procedural efficiency.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 25, 2025

Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Qualcomm II) raised questions about the extent to which petitioners can rely on applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in inter partes review proceedings.  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. largely cabins the Qualcomm II decision to its particular facts and makes clear that AAPA can be used as evidence of background knowledge as part of an obviousness argument.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a “basis” for a ground is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). In doing so, the Court rejected the PTAB’s “blanket rule” that “AAPA used in combination with prior art patents or printed publications under § 311(b) is ipso facto not the basis or part of the basis of a ground.” Ultimately, while the case clarifies that expressly listing AAPA in an IPR ground is improper, the precise line between proper and improper uses of AAPA in other instances remains unclear.

...

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.