Avoiding 101 Eligibility Issues in Internet Centric Method Claims
Contributed by Knobbe Martens. Originally published on Patexia; republished here as part of the LexDana archive.
Before Stoll, Reyna, and Hughes, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Summary: The specific implementation of an abstract idea, such as improving Internet functionality, can be a patent eligible concept.
Google moved to dismiss patent infringement claims brought by Sholem Weisner as claiming patent ineligible subject matter. All four asserted patents shared a specification. Two patents claimed methods for logging a mobile device user’s location data for use in optimizing a search (the “travel log patents”), while the two other patents claimed methods for using travel histories to improve search results (the “search optimization patents”). Although the District Court only analyzed the travel log patents under Alice’s two-part test, it dismissed both the travel log patents and the search optimization patents as patent ineligible.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s findings regarding the travel log patents. However, the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court’s determination of patent ineligibility regarding the search optimization patents. The Federal Circuit determined that the claims of the search optimization patents were directed to an abstract idea. However, the specific implementation of this abstract idea to solve a problem unique to the Internet transformed the claims into claiming eligible subject matter. Specifically, the implementation of physical travel history data from a “reference person” to prioritize search results, when conventional search ordering methodologies defaulted to using virtual visitation data to order search results, solved the Internet-specific problem of searches providing impersonal search results. The Federal Circuit likened the search optimization’s claims to DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), which similarly solved an Internet-specific problem by overriding conventional Internet sequences with patented methodology.
Judge Hughes dissented, arguing that the claims recited routine and conventional algorithms for search engine optimization, thus leaving only the abstract idea of using location data to improve search results. Judge Hughes also argued the problem of search engine optimization is not particular to the Internet, since people in the past have used a reference person’s physical travel data for recommendations before, like asking friends which restaurants they have visited before.
Editor: Paul Stewart
Written by: Christian Boettcher and Hans Mayer
More insights
Changes to Mexican Patent Law May Impact Life Science Patent Prosecution
Written by : Jason J. Jardine and Bailey R. Arenberg Key Takeaway : While recent amendments to Mexico’s patent laws promote faster prosecution and earlier decisions on patents, concerns abound as to the feasibility and integrity of the prosecution…
Why USPTO Rejected Your Patent Application?
You spent months perfecting your invention. Weeks writing the application. But the rejection letter arrived anyway. The culprit? Often, it's something surprisingly simple: your drawings. After reviewing thousands of patent applications, I've…
The Uspto S Evolving Approach to Patent Eligibility Insights From Director Squires Aipla Address
Written by : Philip M. Nelson On October 31, 2025, Director Squires spoke to the American Intellectual Property Law Association and provided a forceful statement on his view for the direction of patent law. Of particular interest were his comments on…