Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, et al., Doc. No. 06-2335 (C.D. Cal. 2009) [PDF]

Summary. The court granted summary judgment finding the asserted claims directed to a computer aided method of managing a credit application were invalid as failing the machine-or-transformation test from Bilski. The court found the process claims were not tied to a particular machine.

Facts. The plaintiff DealerTrack, Inc. (“DealerTrack”) asserted that defendant’s Finance Express and RouteOne infringed three of DealerTrack’s patents, including U.S. Patent 7,181,427 [Link] (the “‘427 Patent”). The ’427 patent provides a “computer based credit application processing system [that] provides a graphical user interface, automatic software update downloading, lender to lender routing of credit applications, and integration with in-house finance and insurance systems and third party data entry facilities, among other features.”

Claim 1 of the ’427 patent provides:

A computer aided method of managing a credit application, the method comprising the steps of:

receiving credit application data from a remote application entry and display device;

 

selectively forwarding the credit application data to remote funding source terminal devices;

 

forwarding funding decision data from at least one of theremote funding source terminal devices to the remote application entry and display device;

 

wherein the selectively forwarding the credit application data step further comprises:

 

sending at least a portion of a credit application to more than one of said remote funding sources substantially at the same time;

 

sending at least a portion of a credit application to more than one of said remote funding sources sequentially until a finding [sic] source returns a positive funding decision;

 

sending . . . a credit application . . . after a predetermined time . . . ; or;

 

sending the credit application from a first remote funding source to a second remote finding [sic] source . . . .

DealerTrack arged that the claims of the ‘427 Patent were tied to a (1) central processor “consisting of a specially programmed computer hardware and database,” a (2) “remote application entry and display device,” and a “remote funding source terminal device.”

Central Processor Not Specially Programmed. The court stated, “The ‘427 Patent does not specify precisely how the computer hardware and database are ‘specially programmed,’ and the claimed central processor is nothing more than a general purpose computer that has been programmed in some unspecified manner.” See Ex Parte Nawathe, No. 2007-3360, 2009 WL 327520, (BPAI Feb. 9, 2009) (rejecting under Section 101 a claim reciting a “computerized method” of inputting and representing XML documents as insufficiently tied to “a particular computer specifically programmed for executing the steps of the claimed method”).

Not Tied to a Particular Machine. In an earlier claim construction order the court found:

• “remote application entry and display device” included “any device, e.g.,personal computer or dumb terminal, remote from the central processor, for application entry and display.”
• “terminal device” as “any device, e.g., personal computer or dumb terminal, located at a logical or physical terminus of the system.”

The court has little trouble finding these devices were not particular machines withing the meaning of Bilski after finding that these various “devices” include “any device.”

• Conducting an IP Audit – IP Toolbox [Australian Government] – – The Australian Government provides a comprehensive step-by-step guide to performing an IP Audit. An IP audit is a systematic review of the IP owned, used or acquired by a company. An audit’s principal goal is to identify all the IP your company may have.
• Don’t leave money on the table: Run an IP audit [Massachusetts Biotech and Technology News] – – An IP audit is a periodic and systematic review of the IP owned, used or acquired by a business. Its purpose is to inventory all IP owned, licensed or acquired by the company, to project the future cost and value associated with each piece of IP, to mine underused corporate assets, to identify any threats to a company’s bottom line, and to enable business executives to devise informed strategies that will maintain and improve the company’s market position.
• An IP Audit Of Spongebob Squarepants [Erik J. Heels] – – Erik performs an informative comprehensive IP audit based on the pretext that Spongebob’s creator Stephen Hillenburg has contacted Erick for advice about protecting his IP related to Spongebob Squarepants.
• Top 5 IP audit mistakes [IP Thinktank Blog] – – #4 “Too much focus on protecting new IP and too little on exploiting or killing what you have.”
• The IP Management Audit: Start Top-down, Then Across [IP Frontline] – – A checklist that every IP audit manager needs as a starting point – the what, where, who and how of initiating a company-wide intellectual property management audit.
• IP Audit – A “How to” Guide. [ WIPO] – – “An IP Audit is defined as a systematic review of the IP assets owned, used or acquired by a business. Its purpose is to uncover under-utilized IP assets, to identify any threats to a company’s bottom line, and to enable business planners to devise informed strategies that will maintain and improve the company’s market position.”

The pilot only applies to applications classified in Class 709 (electrical computers and digital processing systems: multi-computer data transferring) and applications in Class 707 (data processing: database and file management or data structures.

In all other cases, MPEP 713.02 applies to allow pre-examination interviews at the descretion of the Examiner.