defendants-ap-pellees v. Google LLC, YouTube, LLC
Oral Argument — 03/01/2021 · Case 20-1543 · 31:26
0:02
Appellant Attorney (Lawrence Milton Hadley)
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is now open and in session.
0:08
God save the United States and this honorable court.
0:12
Judge Prost
The first case for argument this morning is 20-1543, Personal Web Technologies v. Google.
0:20
Mr. Hadley, whenever you're ready.
0:23
Appellant Attorney (Lawrence Milton Hadley)
Thank you, Your Honor. May it please the court.
0:26
In Alice Step 1, courts look at the focus of the claims,
0:30
not whether the invention can be filled into a single sentence.
0:34
Under this court's improvement in computer or network platform capabilities or functionality
0:48
or system that qualifies as an abstract idea,
0:57
computers are simply invoked merely as a tool to recite a specific means or method
1:05
that solves a problem in an existing technological process.
1:09
That does not mean that the claims have to recite how a technological solution is captured in the patent claims.
1:17
Judge Prost
Mr. Hadley, this is Judge... Go ahead, Judge Lurie, please.
1:20
Judge Lourie
Thank you, Chief.
1:22
Mr. Hadley, boil down to their essence.
1:27
When you look at the claims, they reside receiving, storing, deleting, and controlling access to data.
1:35
Those are all abstract ideas.
1:39
Appellant Attorney (Lawrence Milton Hadley)
Abstract ideas.
1:51
The Supreme Court said that's not the analysis.
1:55
It looks at the claims as a whole.
1:58
And in fact, the claims here build on one another.
2:01
So the first step...
2:09
And then the next element that this court focused on is the personal web decision
2:27
and finding that the claims at issue were novel over the prior art asserted.
2:33
And then the third step...
2:35
Judge Lourie
The issue, as you said, was novelty or obviousness.
2:39
And those are different issues.
2:42
We have eligible subject matter here,
2:45
not a question of novelty or cleverness or non-obviousness.
2:54
Appellant Attorney (Lawrence Milton Hadley)
And we have a general opinion when using...
3:02
...for resolving that, including...
3:19
Judge Prost
Well, Mr. Hadley, I'm a little confused.
3:22
There are three steps recited.
3:25
And if we were to conclude that with respect to at least each individual step,
3:30
we've got cases that really are on point
3:34
that establish that each individual step is an abstract idea.
3:39
So if you take that as a given, just as a hypothetical,
3:42
do you have an argument that this ordered combination,
3:46
somehow makes the combination of three abstract idea steps non-abstract,
3:55
and do you have an argument about that with respect to these particular steps?
3:59
Appellant Attorney (Lawrence Milton Hadley)
The question, again, goes to whether the combination and invokes this as a tool.
4:43
Convention essentially systems improvement that allow things like the Internet to...
4:59
Judge Reyna
Well, let me...
5:00
Counsel, this is...
5:01
Judge Prost
Go ahead, Judge Ray.
5:02
Judge Reyna
Go ahead.
5:05
Counsel, let me ask you this question.
5:08
In content extraction and transmission versus Wells Fargo,
5:12
we held that the claims were ineligible,
5:15
and we kind of laid it out in a simple explanation,
5:21
and we said, number one, they collect data.
5:24
Number two, they recognize certain data within the collected data set.
5:28
And number three, they store that recognized data in a memory.
5:32
When I superimpose...
5:34
When I superimpose those three conclusions in that particular case to what we have here,
5:39
it's almost identical.
5:42
I'm having a hard time seeing how you're going to get out of this.
5:47
Appellant Attorney (Lawrence Milton Hadley)
Well, the difference in those cases, in content extraction in particular,
5:52
was that there was no functional improvement to the computer network.
5:57
It simply took what was a preexisting conventional process...
6:02
In this case, you're not arguing that you have a specialized computer
6:13
Judge Reyna
or that the application of the steps...
6:15
Result in a specialized computer, correct?
6:18
Appellant Attorney (Lawrence Milton Hadley)
No, we are not.
6:20
What we're arguing is that there is a documented and fundamental improvement
6:26
to the network platform itself,
6:29
the use of content-based identifiers, names, and locations in a data processing system.
6:37
That improves the network sort of accessing...
6:59
Judge Reyna
In this argument, are you arguing that the claims are directed towards the improvement of Internet,
7:11
Appellant Attorney (Lawrence Milton Hadley)
technology, connection flows, and a network environment?
7:28
Judge Prost
Well, Mr. Hadley, this is Judge Prost.
7:31
I mean, the concern or the question I'm having with your response to Judge Reyna is,
7:36
firstly, and I think Google points this out in its brief,
7:39
that the alleged improvement is not recited in the claim.
7:46
Putting that aside, we've got a case called Secure Mail,
7:51
and they talk about improving the efficiency of performing an abstract idea
7:55
by using technological...
7:57
Technological tools does not constitute a technological improvement.
8:02
Are you familiar with that?
8:04
That was, in our opinion, in Secured Mail.
8:07
Judge Reyna
I am, Your Honor.
8:08
Judge Prost
So those are, I guess...
8:09
So those are the two rebuttal points to what you've been telling us.
8:12
So why am I wrong?
8:14
Appellant Attorney (Lawrence Milton Hadley)
Because in Secured Mail, there was no improvement to the mail system itself.
8:18
It was simply computerizing the mail system by affixing a barcode on mail,
8:24
connecting that to a computer in a conventional way.
8:31
Here, you're not taking computers and using them in a conventional way.
8:35
You invented, or the inventors here came up with an entirely new naming and storage convention
8:47
where you had diverse management systems and subjective names
8:53
and particular data items could be given the same names.
8:57
The whole field called content-addressable storage.
9:06
The tangible result of this is that...
9:10
Judge Reyna
Counsel, this is Judge Reyna, but your claims are not directed towards resolving this...
9:16
...the diversity of files or the diversity of the file management systems that existed in the Internet.
9:25
So it seems to me, since the claims are not directed to that,
9:28
then it seems to me that the argument is that this is the claimed advance.
9:32
Is that right?
9:34
Appellant Attorney (Lawrence Milton Hadley)
It is, again, when we look at the full solution as captions.
9:48
And here, if you look at the claims in the ordered combination,
9:51
it does say exactly how you do it by giving all of the data items...
9:56
It seems to me that if you go down that route,
10:15
Judge Reyna
what you're claiming is all in the Internet.
10:20
And that is...
10:20
Appellant Attorney (Lawrence Milton Hadley)
The use of content-based identifiers compared against the plurality of...
10:34
...in the results to perform the operation...
10:49
...that there are other ways to do it.
10:51
For example, in Woodhill, you knew the name of the...
10:57
...conventionally with its name and you knew its location.
11:00
And then what you could do was not back up a particular piece of that file
11:07
that you had on your computer.
11:08
If it was already on...
11:09
...on another computer.
11:11
And what this invention does is it expands that technology considerably
11:15
so that you don't have to, for example, back up a piece of data,
11:20
not just if it is in the exact same location,
11:23
in the exact same file that you previously backed up,
11:26
but whether it is anywhere in the entire network.
11:30
Anywhere.
11:30
And that's a significant improvement.
11:33
Appellee Attorney (Cynthia D. Vreeland)
Yes.
11:40
Judge Prost
Why don't we hear from Ms. Freeland and we'll reserve your rebuttal time.
11:43
Thank you.
11:48
Ms. Freeland?
11:49
Appellee Attorney (Cynthia D. Vreeland)
Good morning.
11:50
Judge Prost
Good morning.
11:51
Appellee Attorney (Cynthia D. Vreeland)
Yes.
11:51
May it please the court.
11:53
My name is Cindy Freeland and I'll be arguing this morning
11:55
on behalf of my clients, EMC and VMware,
11:58
and our co-appellees, Google and Facebook.
12:01
We believe the district court correctly held that the idea
12:05
of using content-based identifiers to manage data in a computer system
12:09
is abstract and that implementing that idea with a generic hash function
12:13
provides no inventive concept.
12:16
Your Honor has highlighted a number of the cases that are very similar.
12:19
From this court, including content extraction and secured mail,
12:23
I'd also highlight the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case
12:28
and the Smart Systems v. Chicago Transit case,
12:31
as well as Bridge and Post.
12:34
All of these cases involved generating an identifier
12:37
based on a hash function or some other mathematical algorithm,
12:42
comparing that identifier to other values,
12:45
using the result of that comparison to either deny it
12:49
or deny access to a resource or to delete unwanted content.
12:53
Again, exactly the same three-step process as PersonalWeb's claims here
12:57
and ineligible for the very same reason.
13:02
I'd like to turn first to the issues raised with respect to ALICE Step 1.
13:10
To begin with, there's no dispute here on what the claimed advance is
13:14
because the district court accepted PersonalWeb's characterization of the claim.
13:19
As Your Honor is recognizing your question,
13:21
the claimed advance was simply using a content-based identifier
13:25
to perform a standard file management function.
13:30
And the court has long held in a long line of cases
13:33
that claims like these are abstract.
13:36
Judge Prost
Well, what about your friend's argument, as I understand it,
13:39
that there are efficiency gains for the networks
13:43
in the uses they've claimed in this patent?
13:46
Why doesn't that give them something,
13:48
beyond what our cases have held?
13:51
Appellee Attorney (Cynthia D. Vreeland)
I think the challenge to their argument is
13:54
they have to show that there is an improvement
13:56
to the functionality of computers, and they haven't done that.
14:01
Instead, if anything, these claims just improve the abstract process.
14:06
Judge Reyna
They're not arguing that they have or they achieve a specialized computer.
14:12
What they're arguing is that they resolved an Internet-based problem,
14:16
and that problem was a diversity in the information,
14:19
that existed, the data that existed in the Internet.
14:24
And they resolved that diversity.
14:29
Appellee Attorney (Cynthia D. Vreeland)
Right, and I would say consistent with the cases,
14:31
that is an improvement to the abstract process
14:34
and not to the functionality of the computers.
14:36
And I would highlight that the court has-
14:38
Judge Reyna
But our cases do recognize that you can have claims
14:43
that are directed to an improvement
14:45
in the technology of the Internet,
14:48
and that that could be improved.
14:50
And that that could be patent eligible.
14:53
Appellee Attorney (Cynthia D. Vreeland)
Absolutely, if you are improving the functionality
14:56
of the computer or the network,
14:58
and not simply improving the abstract process.
15:02
And I would highlight that in three of the cases
15:05
cited in our brief, the three we've focused on,
15:07
ID versus Symantec, Smart Systems versus Chicago,
15:11
Bridge and Post, all three of these involved
15:15
very, very similar claims to improving the functionality
15:18
of a computer and a network, all three of these cases,
15:21
and Mr. Hadley has focused on the use of hash-based identifiers.
15:26
In all three of these cases, the court addressed the claim
15:29
that used a hash-based identifier
15:32
for the same purported efficiencies.
15:35
In the Smart Systems case,
15:37
there was a hash identifier for bank cards
15:40
that purportedly led to the same system improvement.
15:43
In Bridge and Post, a persistent identifier for a device
15:47
that was a hash that was used to implement
15:51
marketing and ID versus Symantec.
15:54
Judge Reyna
Counsel, Counsel, can you address your opponent's claim,
16:00
as I see it, that what they have improved
16:03
is network functionality.
16:05
And if you have a diverse means in which data is managed,
16:11
is located, is identified, and you have many parties
16:16
that are applying their own way of doing this,
16:19
they claim that they resolved
16:21
the data.
16:22
They have a diversity of data management,
16:25
and that that improved network functionality.
16:27
That seems to get a little bit close to the edge
16:32
of being PAN eligible.
16:34
Appellee Attorney (Cynthia D. Vreeland)
Well, I would say those are exactly the arguments
16:37
that this court rejected in ID versus Symantec,
16:40
in Smart Systems versus Chicago Transit,
16:42
and in Bridge and Post, because as the court concluded
16:46
in all those cases, the claimed improvement
16:48
wasn't to the functionality of the computers.
16:52
It wasn't a specific improvement.
16:54
Judge Reyna
I'm not talking about improving the functionality
16:58
of a computer.
16:59
They've already said that that's not what the claims
17:01
are directed to.
17:02
They're saying that the claims are directed to improvement
17:05
network functionality.
17:09
Right.
17:10
Appellee Attorney (Cynthia D. Vreeland)
And I think what they're essentially saying, though,
17:12
is that it's an improvement in the abstract process.
17:14
They're saying that these hash-based identifiers improve
17:18
the process of managing data.
17:21
And as this court has held many times,
17:24
merely adding computer functionality
17:26
to increase the speed or efficiency of a process
17:30
is not enough for patent eligibility.
17:32
And I think that's all that's happening here.
17:34
They're adding computer functionality to,
17:37
or using computer functionality to try and more efficiently
17:43
perform this abstract process of locating data in a network
17:49
and of accessing, controlling access to data
17:54
in a network.
17:54
And I think the library analogy that we've highlighted
17:58
in our brief underscores this.
18:01
Librarians have been using content-based identifiers
18:04
to identify, locate, and manage library books for decades.
18:09
And these claims aren't, all the claims they're doing
18:13
is adding computer functionality to try and increase
18:16
the speed and efficiency of what is otherwise
18:19
an abstract process.
18:22
And also, I like that.
18:23
Judge Reyna
Is this invention?
18:24
The Dewey Decimal System for internet network functionality?
18:32
Appellee Attorney (Cynthia D. Vreeland)
I think it is akin to a Dewey Decimal System for a network.
18:37
I mean, it's using content-based identifiers
18:40
to identify, locate, and manage content.
18:45
You know, these hash-based identifiers,
18:47
the patent claims, makes it easier to see where things
18:51
are located, to find things in a network, to manage number
18:55
of copies.
18:56
So absolutely, we see it as no different than a computerized
19:01
implementation of the abstract idea.
19:04
Judge Reyna
So let's say you have five libraries.
19:06
And the librarian in each one of those libraries
19:09
applies a different classification system
19:12
for identifying and locating material in the library.
19:15
Then somebody comes along and creates a system that
19:20
clears the diversity found in the five different systems,
19:24
and comes up with one system.
19:25
To where you can go to one library,
19:28
to the next, and find and identify the materials
19:32
using one system.
19:33
Isn't that an improvement of network functionality,
19:38
of internet network functionality?
19:40
Appellee Attorney (Cynthia D. Vreeland)
I would say, I mean, that is exactly the Dewey Decimal
19:45
System.
19:45
The Dewey Decimal System is a single,
19:48
the idea was to have the same organization process,
19:52
the same naming process across libraries,
19:56
and across books.
19:57
So it is, certainly, a Dewey Decimal System
20:01
improves the libraries.
20:03
But it's an improvement to the abstract process
20:05
of identifying, and locating, and managing books.
20:09
And here, the content-based identifiers
20:13
perform the same function.
20:15
And again, I'd highlight that that efficiency
20:18
gain from these content-based identifiers
20:21
that Personal Web focuses on, those
20:23
were exactly the same arguments that were made,
20:25
in the Symantec case, in the Smart System case,
20:29
in the Bridge and Post case.
20:30
In each of those cases, the patent owners
20:33
focus on the use of a mathematically-based,
20:37
or hash-based identifier to make more efficient
20:40
the process of managing data.
20:42
And in every one of those cases, the court
20:44
found that, to the extent there was any improvement,
20:49
it was an improvement to the abstract process,
20:52
and not an improvement to computer,
20:55
to network or computer functionality.
21:00
And I'd also highlight, so we see no improvement here,
21:05
to no technical improvement.
21:08
And as Judge Prost and Judge Lurie both recognize,
21:11
in addition to that problem, the purported improvements
21:15
that Personal Web is focused on are just nowhere captured
21:20
in its patent claims.
21:21
And I think you can see that, for example,
21:24
by looking at claim 24.
21:27
This is the claim 24 of the 310 patent,
21:28
which appears on the Appendix 379.
21:32
This is the claim that the parties focused on quite a bit
21:36
in their brief.
21:37
And if you were to look at this claim,
21:40
none of the cited technical improvements
21:43
that Personal Web claims are in this claim.
21:46
Instead, there's-
21:47
Judge Prost
Well, let me ask you about that, because on that argument,
21:52
are you saying that they need, the claims need,
21:55
to recite the words, this improves network functionality?
21:59
Or is it sufficient that the operations that are stated
22:02
in the claims will simply have that effect?
22:05
Appellee Attorney (Cynthia D. Vreeland)
I think the latter, Your Honor.
22:07
The question is whether implementing this claim
22:11
would achieve the purported improvement.
22:14
Judge Prost
And if you were to look at the-
22:15
Excuse me a minute, but doesn't the specification
22:18
discuss improvements that are premised on those claim steps?
22:24
Appellee Attorney (Cynthia D. Vreeland)
Well, no.
22:26
I mean, if you were to look at the particular claims,
22:31
I mean, the question is, is the structure
22:33
in this claim accomplishing the goals
22:36
that the specification set out.
22:38
And I would say no.
22:39
If you were to look at Claim 24, for example,
22:43
Claim 24, the first limitation, limitation A,
22:47
is simply a whole lot of words for the idea
22:50
of using one of these content-dependent names
22:53
that's based on a hash function.
22:55
And then if you want to look at their approach,
22:56
were to go to Limitation B, all it says is...
22:59
Judge Lourie
Ms. Vreeland, isn't it also your view that if
23:03
these added points were in the claims, they would still be abstractions?
23:09
Appellee Attorney (Cynthia D. Vreeland)
Yes, absolutely. Even
23:12
if these purported improvements were in the claim, they would absolutely
23:15
still be abstractions. The claims would do no more than improve
23:20
the abstract process. But in addition to that, the claimed
23:24
improvements they focus on just aren't in the claim.
23:27
In this claim, you're simply comparing one of these content
23:32
dependent names to a plurality of values to
23:36
decide if access should be provided or not provided.
23:40
And if you look at the specification where it talks about the embodiment
23:44
of this claim, which is in column 31, you're not
23:48
even comparing these content dependent names to all of the other
23:52
content in the network.
23:53
You're just comparing them to a licensing table.
23:57
So this is...the only
24:00
structure that this claim provides is taking a content dependent name
24:05
and comparing it to two other values in a
24:08
table of licensed content and using that
24:13
table of licensed content to decide whether access should be authorized
24:17
or not. So purely abstract and also
24:21
doesn't capture any of the...
24:23
purported improvements. And again, the...it's column 31
24:27
of the patent, the top of column 31 that talks about this
24:31
licensing table. So Ada, I guess with my remaining time
24:39
I would turn quickly to the second step of the process, unless
24:42
there are any other questions on ALA step one. And I
24:50
would just highlight for ALA step two that
24:53
personal web focuses, again, on this use of content-based identifiers.
24:58
But significantly,
24:59
they don't claim that the mathematical algorithms used to create
25:04
the content-based identifiers provide the inventive concept, and they
25:08
can't because the patents admit...I'm sorry, what's that?
25:15
Because the patents admit that these hash-based...these hash functions
25:19
used to create the identifiers were old, well-known, and conventional.
25:24
Instead, personal web focuses on the use of these content-based
25:28
identifiers. It claims that this new use of an old,
25:31
technology provides the inventive concept. And I would just highlight that that isn't enough to
25:37
save the claims. Even if you were to consider the combination, even if you were to consider all of
25:43
the elements in those claims together, they still amount to nothing more than applying the abstract
25:49
idea on generic computer components with a known mathematical algorithm. And here they can't claim
25:57
that the fact that the claims reference this content-based identifier based on a hash function
26:05
isn't enough to take them out of the abstract. And you can't, the court has been clear that you can't
26:12
patent a mathematical algorithm. And the patents admit that the algorithms here are old. So the
26:19
claims do nothing more than apply the abstract idea using conventional and well-understood
26:25
technologies.
26:26
In the BSD case, this court emphasized that if a claim's only inventive concept is the application of an
26:34
abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques, then the claim has not been transformed.
26:41
So we believe the district court correctly held that there were no inventive concepts either individually or
26:47
in combination. Instead, the claim simply used the abstract ideas in a conventional way, again, just like
26:54
the claim that there's no concept.
26:56
This court found not patentable in content extraction, in ID versus demand tax, in smart systems, and in
27:03
bridge and post. Thank you.
27:05
Judge Prost
Thank you. Mr. Hadley, you've got your rebuttal time remaining.
27:10
Appellant Attorney (Lawrence Milton Hadley)
Thank you, Your Honor. In this, the question is not you itself, but many, many improved network functions,
27:33
true and packet intelligent signature against closed signatures in a table used the results found to be
27:49
patent eligible, the network functionality.
27:54
Mine
27:55
have an internet failure evidence of pod相.
27:57
A form of a identifier was used claim language to determine access authorization based on an object level and that was used to improve network security, again, an improved functionality of the network itself, just like the claims at issue here. In contrast cases like smart systems didn't improve network functionality. It's simply used a bank card to gain access to mass translation and multiple requests to the IT να chi œčť 청šänger bağəc
28:29
nothing improved network functionality same was true in bridge and post where
28:34
the identifier was used users and delivered targeted media such as
28:41
advertisements again no improvement in computer functionality or network
28:45
functionality and in the IV case the same was true where the the identifier
28:54
was used in connection with virus scanning there was no improved
28:58
functionality of the network or even the virus it was a scanner it was it was
29:03
simply conventional virus scanning particularly useful here that these
29:16
patents computerized the duly decimal system the invention here would be akin
29:21
to taking randomly organized them with subject matter or even in numerical
29:31
order and then giving a librarian a random number and saying you know don't
29:37
or eliminate all duplicates
29:42
or locate it based on just this number and by the way if there is a single word
29:48
in the book that differs then don't do any of these operations that's the kind
29:53
of improvement to the network functionality that is comparable to the
29:58
Judge Reyna
library system why isn't this a just an application of an algorithm a well-known
30:05
algorithm at that to a non generic computer and saying up and saying apply
30:11
it
30:13
Appellant Attorney (Lawrence Milton Hadley)
because it keeps away distributed across computer networks in a functionally
30:23
improved way it is a way that was during the development of the internet when when
30:32
you had these diverse networks with different file management system
30:35
different naming locations and conventional names there was there was a
30:40
limit to how with the conventional process and what the what using the hash
30:52
here did
30:53
was allow for that.
30:56
And that's exactly the kind of invention.
31:03
And in this...
31:08
Mr. Hadley, I think we heard the buzzers.
31:18
Judge Prost
Thank you.
31:20
Thank both sides, and the case is submitted.
31:23
Appellant Attorney (Lawrence Milton Hadley)
Thank you.