Claim for Scheduling Packet Data Communication Survives Patent Eligibility Challenge in Motion to Dismiss
Last week, in yet another patent case before Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division, the Court ruled that Defendants T Mobile USA, Inc. and T-Mobile US, Inc. (collectively, "T-Mobile") failed to show that a claim related to packet scheduling is patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
T-Mobile had moved to dismiss claim 109 of U.S. Patent. No. RE46,206 (the '206 patent) (a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 7,251,218) as directed to ineligible subject matter. In addition, T-Mobile, as well as Defendants Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, moved to dismiss all claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,359,971 and claim 1 of the '206 patent as barred by issue preclusion. The Court carried the motion under issue preclusion grounds but denied the motion as to patent eligibility.
The '206 patent relates generally to packet data communication based on end-user quality of service (QoS) requirements. As described in the Background of the patent, packet switching -- which breaks up network data traffic into "packets" for transmission from one device to another device for reassembly -- uses available wireless network bandwidth more efficiently than circuit switching in that it enables many devices to share the available bandwidth. The invention of claim 109 takes end-user QoS requirements into account when scheduling packet data to be transmitted over a shared bandwidth. In particular, packets are classified according to such QoS requirements and then scheduled for upstream and downstream communication "according to a scheduling algorithm."
For reference, claim 109 is provided below:
109. A method for scheduling packets comprising:
classifying a plurality of packets according to end-user quality of service (QoS) requirements of said plurality of packets; and
scheduling said plurality of packets for communication in at least one of an upstream direction and a downstream direction over a shared wireless bandwidth according to a scheduling algorithm.
In their motion to dismiss, T-Mobile not only argued that claim 109 is directed to the abstract idea of "classifying information based on an end-user's service requirements and scheduling information," but that the claim is "so abstract" that it can be performed by the human mind or using pen and paper. T-Mobile even provided a drawing to illustrate this point (complete with a hand holding a pencil, to drive the point home even further):
In addition, T-Mobile analogized claim 109 to classifying mail according to customer service requirements and scheduling mail (similar to an analogy made in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., which T-Mobile cited for support). T-Mobile also cited to Federal Circuit decisions in Cyberfone Sys., LLC v. CNN Interactive Grp., Inc. and In re TLI Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig., the former of which found an abstract idea in "collecting information in classified form, then separating and transmitting that information in classified form," and the latter of which found an abstract idea in "classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner." Emphasizing In re TLI, T-Mobile asserted that the concept of storing digital images could be substituted for scheduling information.
In response, Intellectual Ventures argued that T-Mobile trivialized the invention and described the claims at too high a level. Intellectual Ventures also argued that the invention makes little sense outside of the context of telecommunications, and overcomes a problem specifically arising in that realm -- namely, that "different types of data packets have different ideal quality of service ("QoS") settings, which results in suboptimal data flow when, for example, voice packets and data packets are transferred over the same connection." According to Intellectual Ventures, claim 109 specifically addresses this problem by requiring wireless networks to classify packets according to QoS requirements before scheduling the packets for communication.
The Court agreed that "[the] '206 patent is directed to a technical solution to a technical problem" and was persuaded that the patent sufficiently describes the invention as such. In particular, the Court cited to portions of the patent that discuss existing challenges that wireless networks face in delivering QoS to end-users, including network congestion. The Court then elaborated:
The '206 Patent is explicit in its solution to these problems. Indeed, the first sentence, covering the field of the invention, states "The present invention relates generally to telecommunications and, more particularly, to a system and method for implementing a QoS aware wireless point-to-multi-point transmission system." (emphasis added). The "Summary of the Invention" states that "[t]he present invention is directed to an IP flow classification system used in a wireless telecommunications system. More specifically, the IP flow classification system groups IP flows in a packet-centric wireless point to multi-point telecommunications system." Accordingly, the '206 Patent makes clear that the patented invention is directed towards a technological solution to these stated problems. Such solution is achieved by classifying, on a packet level, what the ideal quality of services characteristics are for each type of data in order to optimize data flow. Under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court is required to take these affirmative statements as true.
(citations omitted).
The Court thus found that the '206 patent is directed to patent eligible subject matter and that the Defendants failed to show otherwise.
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. T Mobile USA, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2018)
Order Carrying-in-part and Denying-in-part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss by District Judge Gilstrap
