Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
IP News
Federal Circuit Weighs On the Patentability of Claims to Targeted Advertising
On March 5, 2024, a Federal Circuit panel of Judges Moore, Stoll, and Cunningham issued a unanimous opinion, authored by Chief Judge Moore, in Chewy, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp., Case No. 22-1756. International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) owns U.S. Patent Nos. 7,7072,849 (the '849 patent) and 7,7076,443 (the '443 patent). The '849 patent is directed to improved methods for presenting advertisements to a user of an interactive service. Slip. Op. at 2. The '443 patent is directed to improved systems and methods for targeting advertisements. Id. Chewy, Inc. (Chewy) sought a declaratory judgment of noninfringement of the '849 and '443 patents. Id. at 3. IBM filed counterclaims alleging Chewy infringed the patents. Id. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Chewy's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of claims 1, 2, 12, 14, and 18 of the '849 patent. Id. The district court also granted Chewy's motion for summary judgment that claims 13, 15, 16, and 17 of the '443 patent are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. Id. IBM appealed both summary judgment rulings. Id.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement of claims 1, 2, 14, and 18 of the '849 patent. The district court had construed the limitation "selectively storing" in the claims to mean the advertising objects must be "pre-fetched." Id. at 5. IBM argued that the proper construction does not require "pre-fetching." Id. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's construction because there are repeated written descriptions of the invention as including pre-fetching and the '849 patent uniformly refers to the pre-fetching as an aspect of the invention as a whole. Id. at 5-6. The prosecution history also showed that the applicant explained that selectively storing means advertising objects are pre-fetch. Id. at 8. IBM argued that even under the district court's construction, there is a factual dispute regarding whether Chewy's website or mobile applications selectively store advertising objects. Id. at 9. The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that "pre-fetching" requires advertisements be retrieved and stored before the user requests a page. Id. at 10. Because Chewy only retrieves advertisements in response to a user requesting a page, the Federal Circuit found no material factual dispute that Chewy does not perform the selectively storing limitation. Id.
The Federal Circuit, however, reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement of claim 12 of the '849 patent. The district court construed the claim's limitation of "establishing characterizations for respective users based on the compiled data" to require delivering advertisements to a user based on user-specific targeting criteria. Id. at 11. Chewy's privacy policy and internal documents evidenced that Chewy utilizes users' browsing and purchasing history to provide personalized or targeted advertisements. Id. at 12-13. The Federal Circuit therefore found that there is a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether Chewy "establish[es] characterizations for respective users." Id. at 14.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Overview of Regulatory Guidance Governing the Use of AI Systems In the Workplace
Businesses have long embraced the use of computer technology in the workplace as a means of improving efficiency and productivity of their operations. In recent years, businesses have incorporated artificial intelligence and other automated and algorithmic technologies into their computer systems. This article provides an overview of the federal regulatory guidance and the state and local rules in place so far and suggests ways in which employers may wish to address these developments with policies and practices to reduce legal risk.
Is Google Search Dead? How AI Is Reshaping Search and SEO
This two-part article dives into the massive shifts AI is bringing to Google Search and SEO and why traditional searches are no longer part of the solution for marketers. It’s not theoretical, it’s happening, and firms that adapt will come out ahead.
While Federal Legislation Flounders, State Privacy Laws for Children and Teens Gain Momentum
For decades, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act has been the only law to expressly address privacy for minors’ information other than student data. In the absence of more robust federal requirements, states are stepping in to regulate not only the processing of all minors’ data, but also online platforms used by teens and children.
Revolutionizing Workplace Design: A Perspective from Gray Reed
In an era where the workplace is constantly evolving, law firms face unique challenges and opportunities in facilities management, real estate, and design. Across the industry, firms are reevaluating their office spaces to adapt to hybrid work models, prioritize collaboration, and enhance employee experience. Trends such as flexible seating, technology-driven planning, and the creation of multifunctional spaces are shaping the future of law firm offices.
From DeepSeek to Distillation: Protecting IP In An AI World
Protection against unauthorized model distillation is an emerging issue within the longstanding theme of safeguarding intellectual property. This article examines the legal protections available under the current legal framework and explore why patents may serve as a crucial safeguard against unauthorized distillation.