Patent Claims that Computerize a Basic Marketing Concept are not Patent Eligible

Sep 23, 2014

Reading Time : 1 min

Judge Donato characterized the claims as “a very simple abstract marketing idea” in which (1) a group of people is contacted, (2) a subset of the group is selected, and (3) an action is performed with the subset, such as sending another communication. This idea is nothing more than one of the most basic marketing principles: “identify potential or current customers and engage with them to improve their customer experience.” So the court found that the claims cover a patent­ineligible concept.

Like many of the other patents that have fallen in the wake of Alice Corp., the two patents at­issue merely wrapped an abstract idea – in this instance a marketing idea – in generic computer and Internet technology. Indeed, plaintiff’s counsel admitted during oral argument that the claimed marketing concept could be implemented on a generic computer system. Thus, the computer­related limitations did not transform the abstract marketing idea into a patent­eligible application. Thus, the court held that the patents are patent ineligible under Section 101.

Open Text S.A. v. Alfresco Software Ltd, No. 13­cv­4843, Dkt. No. 204 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 19, 2014)

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries

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

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The District of New Jersey recently denied the litigants’ request for a briefing schedule to resolve a dispute about a proposed discovery confidentiality order, and also denied extending the deadlines for the defendants’ invalidity and non-infringement contentions. At issue was the scope of the FDA and patent prosecution bars in the confidentiality order.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 27, 2026

The USPTO Director denied a patent owner’s request for discretionary denial of two inter partes review (IPR) petitions, citing the petitioner’s “well-settled expectation” that it would not be accused of infringing the two challenged patents. The Director’s conclusion was based on the petitioner’s decade-long business relationship with the original owner of the challenged patents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 24, 2026

The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice because the allegations used a form of “shotgun pleading.” The court explained that a shotgun pleading includes those where every count incorporates every preceding paragraph into each cause of action, and that dismissal of such pleadings was required under Eleventh Circuit precedent.

...

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.