A federal judge from the District of Massachusetts has granted the New England Patriots, LLC’s motion to dismiss Arena IP, LLC’s patent infringement lawsuit, finding that the specific claims brought by the plaintiff “are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter.”
By way of background, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued U.S. Patent No. 8,320,820 (‘820 Patent), entitled “Self-Contained Data Communication System Nodes as Stand-Alone Pods or Embedded in Concrete Walkways and in Walls at Public Venues Including Sports and Entertainment Venues,” on November 27, 2012
The ‘820 Patent notes that, at the time of writing, new sports and entertainment venues were being designed and built to incorporate wireless data communications infrastructure. Older entertainment venues, however, lacked the built-in infrastructure necessary to support large scale handheld device access to live video and other entertainment data. Furthermore, certain venues only required temporary installations of such wireless video and data communications capabilities, for special events. The ‘820 Patent’s claimed invention “intends to address those latter circumstances by providing a system to establish a wireless data communication network within public venues, such as sports and entertainment venues, capable of providing “data including video through a data network from at least one server to handheld wireless devices located in the public venue.”
“The system consists of ‘self-contained communications system nodes,’ which may be provided as stand-alone pods or embedded in concrete walkways and walls, at public venues such as sports and entertainment venues. The system provides at least one pod including ‘wireless communications electronics (e.g., wireless access point, repeaters) and an integrated antennae that can be deployed as a communications node within the public venue.’ The communication pods can also feature ‘a rechargeable power source sustaining self-containing operation of the wireless communication electronics,’ as well as a solar cell providing electrical power to charge the rechargeable power source.”
The ‘820 Patent features three independent claims—claims 1, 8, and 15, all “system” claims. The Patriots asserted that claim 1 is “representative for present purposes.” Claim 1 recites:
1. A system providing communications capacity and supporting the communications of video and data to handheld wireless devices located throughout a sports and entertainment venue, comprising:
at least one server managing data including video of various perspectives of an activity captured by video cameras located throughout the sports and entertainment venue; and
more than one self-contained pod including wireless communications electronics and an integrated antennae for said self-contained pod to operate as a wireless access point sustaining bi-directional communication with said at least one server, said more than one self-contained pod deployed as a matrix of communications nodes throughout a sports and entertainment venue to provide enhanced communications capacity for and data network access by said hand held wireless devices being used by spectators located throughout the sports and entertainment venue and providing access to said data from the at least one server to said hand held wireless devices in use by the spectators.
Arena IP alleged that the Patriots infringed on the ‘820 Patent by deploying “a matrix of communications nodes throughout Gillette Stadium (a sports and entertainment venue) to provide communications capacity for and data network access by handheld wireless devices being used by spectators located throughout the venue.”
The Patriots’ motion to dismiss was based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure12(b)(6), or failure to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Section 101 of the Patent Act provides that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor,” subject to three subject matter exceptions: “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has devised a two-stage framework to determine whether the exceptions apply. Under this framework, a court must (1) determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts and, if so, (2) consider 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. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 189 L. Ed. 2d 296 (2014)
The ruling in Alice provides the framework relied upon by the court in the instant case.
The court ruled for the Patriots on step one, noting that “where the claims of the ‘820 Patent describe an existing process and propose using existing technology to achieve the result of providing wireless communications access in a public venue, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.”
Similarly, it found for the defendants on step two.
“At its core, the ‘820 Patent’s claims disclose the idea that a system already in existence—i.e., a generic server and wireless repeaters, used in their ordinary and conventional manner to extend data communication via wireless access points—can be used on a large scale, in a public venue such as a sports stadium,” the judge wrote. “Such an idea does not constitute an inventive concept, and such claims are not patent-eligible. See Riggs Tech. Holdings, 581 F. Supp. 3d at 362 (finding patent ineligible where it disclosed that ‘a process … already being performed as a human activity … and via wired computers… could also be performed, in more times and at more places, using wireless technology and handheld devices (which already existed and were in use for other purposes), without proposing or claiming any improvement to such technology or devices in order to accomplish the stated (abstract) result’); Yu v. Apple Inc., 1 F.4th 1040, 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (finding that a claimed configuration of conventional computer hardware ‘itself is not an advance’ and ‘does not add sufficient substance to [an] underlying abstract idea’ to render it patent-eligible); Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1263 (finding insufficient transformation where ‘the abstract idea of remote delivery’ would ‘be implemented using the conventional components and functions generic to cellular telephones’).”
For these reasons, it granted the defendant’s motion.
Arena IP, LLC v. New England Patriots, LLC; D. Mass.; Civil Action No. 23-13006-MJJ; 3/27/24
