Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corporation

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division

April 16, 2014

INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ANTHONY J. TRENGA, District Judge.

Before the Court is defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 239] (the "Motion"), upon which the Court held a hearing on April 2, 2014, following which the Court took the motion under advisement. Upon consideration of the Motion, the memoranda and exhibits filed in support thereof and in opposition thereto, and the arguments of counsel at the hearing held on April 2, 2014, and for the following reasons, the Motion will be GRANTED and this matter DISMISSED.

Background

On June 19, 2013, Intellectual Ventures I, LLC and Intellectual Ventures II, LLC (collectively referred to as "IV") brought suit against Capital One Financial Corporation and certain of its affiliated entities (collectively referred to as "Capital One"), claiming that Capital One infringed four of its patents, of which only two remain at issue in the present litigation: (1) U.S. Patent No. 7, 603, 382, entitled "Advanced Internet Interface Providing User Display Access of Customized Webpages" ("the '382 Patent"); and (2) U.S. Patent No. 8, 083, 137, entitled "Administration of Financial Accounts" ("the '137 Patent"). On December 18, 2013, the Court issued its Claim Construction Order [Doc. No. 162], and on February 28, 2014, Capital One filed its Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 239] presently before the Court.

Analysis

I. Patentability Under 35 U.S.C. ยง 101

Capital One contends that both patents consist of unpatentable subject matter under Section 101. Accordingly, Capital One's position, which is "based on a challenge to the eligibility of the subject matter[, ] must be proven by clear and convincing evidence." CLS Bank Intl v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1304-05 (Fed. Cir. 2013), cert. granted, 134 S.Ct. 734, 187 L.Ed.2d 590 (U.S. 2013).

As to the '137 Patent, IV asserts Claims 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of the '137 Patent, of which Claim 5 is the independent claim upon which the remaining claims are dependent.[1] The claimed invention, in essence, utilizes user-selected pre-set limits on spending that are stored in a database that, when reached, communicates a notification to the user via a device.[2] Claim 5 of the '137 Patent reads:

A method for:

storing, in a database, a profile keyed to a user identity and containing one or more user-selected categories to track transactions associated with said user identity, wherein individual user-selected categories include a user pre-set limit; and
causing communication, over a communication medium and to a receiving device, of transaction summary data in the database for at least one of the one or more userselected categories, said transaction data containing said at least one user-selected category's user pre-set limit.

'137 Patent at 10:4-15.

Capital One argues that the '137 Patent covers simply the abstract idea of basic budgeting, whereby a user categorizes transactions and establishes limits on the charges he or she desires for those categories. IV argues that the '137 Patent is not simply an abstract idea, but rather "cover[s] a specific patent eligible application of database technology for electronically administering financial accounts." Mem. in Op. at 7.[3] In support of this position, IV points out that, "[i]n accord with the claimed implementation, there must be a database that integrates profile data keyed to a user identi[t]y and transaction summary data that is then communicated to a device." Mem. in Op. at 8.

As to the '382 Patent, IV asserts Claims 1-5, 16, 17, 19, and 20-22 of the '382 Patent, with the independent claims being 1, 16 and 21. The invention is summarized in the Patent as "a system for delivering information from an information provider to an information user that is selectively tailored toward the capabilities of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.