Uber’s Section 101 Motion to Dismiss Defeated by “Inventive” Ordered Combination

by Orrick - IP Landscape

Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, X One, Inc. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 16-CV-06050-LHK (Judge Lucy H. Koh)

Uber Technologies, the transportation network giant, recently lost a motion to dismiss a two-patent infringement suit when the Court found that Plaintiff X One, Inc.’s patent claims are directed to patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Court held that the individual claim elements are conventional, but as an ordered combination provide an inventive concept sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss.

X One’s patents relate to a “system for exchanging GPS or other position data between wireless devices,” thereby allowing multiple wireless devices to track each other. X One accused Uber’s mobile device applications and its ride-sharing, carpooling, and delivery services of infringement. In defense, Uber asserted that X One’s patents fail to claim patentable subject matter under § 101. The Court reiterated the categories of subject matter prohibited under § 101—laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable—but observed that all inventions, at some level, embody or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas. The Court then proceeded to apply the two-step analysis, laid out in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, to X One’s patent claims, ultimately finding that the claims are directed to abstract ideas but provide an inventive concept as an ordered combination.

At step one, a court must determine the character of the claim as a whole. As the Court explained, this involves only claim limitations that are “part of the asserted claims’ essential character.”  Here, the Court found that the claims at issue are primarily directed to the “gathering, transmission, and display of location information” (i) of a certain subset of individuals from a list, or (ii) to perform a service. The Court omitted certain claim limitations such as the “zoom” feature on the map display, the “self-updating map,” and the ability to track people for a “limited time period” because those features do not affect the character of the claims as a whole.

Next, the Court turned to whether the character of the claims as a whole are directed to abstract ideas. Courts generally compare the claims at issue to those claims already found to be directed to an abstract idea in previous cases. Here, it noted that the Federal Circuit’s decision in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. held that gathering, transmitting, and displaying information is an abstract idea, even if limited to “particular content.”  830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Court further explained that although the Federal Circuit has not addressed a claim involving GPS location tracking, multiple district courts have found that functions pertaining to obtaining and displaying location information are not patentable.

Turning to the “brick-and-mortar” test, the Court reasoned that before GPS tracking and cell phones, people could track the locations of individuals on a map. Thus, the Court explained, while using GPS and wireless devices makes it more efficient to locate someone on a map, an improvement in efficiency created by moving to a new technological environment fails to render a patent non-abstract.

Finally, the Court explained that a claim is not abstract if it improves the functioning of the computer itself. For example, the claims at issue in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. improved the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory, and the claims at issue in McRo v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc. disclosed a method for automating animated facial expressions—in those cases the claims improved the functioning of the computer itself. Here, the Court explained that the claims are not directed to improving the functioning of a computer because the claims simply describe the result produced, not how to implement the desired result, as evidenced by the claims’ functional language. X One argued that the Court should look to particular claim limitations as part of the step-one analysis. But the Court explained that such an analysis is only appropriate when the claims are “unambiguously directed to improvement in computer capabilities.”  Thus, it declined to consider claim features such as the “self-update” and “time-limit” until step two of the Alice analysis, instead holding that X One’s patent claims were directed to abstract ideas.

At step two of the Alice framework, also known as the search for an “inventive concept,” courts consider whether a claim’s limitations transform it into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea by examining whether the claim involves more than the performance of well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. The Court first addressed X One’s claim limitations individually and explained that simply reciting functions like “request and store position information” does not provide an inventive concept. Moreover, the Court observed that neither (i) the use of a zoomable map; (ii) the gathering, transmitting, and displaying of location information; nor (iii) the use of “buddy lists” and “use specific groups” provides an inventive concept individually.

Luckily for X One, the Court found an inventive concept upon analyzing the claim limitations as an ordered combination. X One’s patent specifications describe particular unsolved issues in conventional GPS tracking technology: there was no mechanism to add groups and members of groups, and there was no mechanism to set up “instant buddies,” i.e. temporary location sharing between mobile devices. Instead, the pairing between tracker and trackee had to be permanently set at the time of manufacture. The Court explained the claim limitations “buddy list” and “use specific group” refer to a specific means of dynamically adding people that can be tracked. The Court concluded that combining the buddy list and use specific group systems with GPS tracking “constitutes a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.”  The Court further elaborated that because X One’s invention allows for two-way sharing of information and user-initiated temporary tracking, the patent claims disclose the requisite inventive concept required to survive a § 101 motion to dismiss.

In a last ditch effort to invalidate X One’s patents, Uber argued that the prior art contained an invention that allows users to “identify the locations of select individuals” on a “friends list.”  The Court rejected this argument observing that the novelty of an element or process is of no relevance to the § 101 inquiry—novelty and obviousness are examined under separate provisions of the Patent Act. However, the Court acknowledged that in light of the aforementioned prior art, it was a close call as to whether the claims involved more than the performance of well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. But on a motion to dismiss courts must construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Thus, the Court denied Uber’s motion to dismiss.

Judge Koh’s decision illustrates how the novelty and obviousness analyses inevitably bleed into the § 101 analysis as a result of Alice. Unless and until the Supreme Court shines a light on the concrete differences between the various tests for patentability, patentees and potential infringers will remain shrouded in § 101 uncertainty.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Orrick - IP Landscape | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Orrick - IP Landscape

Orrick - IP Landscape on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.