Eolas Techs. Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (No. 23-1184)

Read online here: https://federalcourtreview.com/2024/08/22/eolas-techs-inc-v-amazon-com-inc-no-23-1184/

I. Introduction and Question Presented

Eolas Technologies Incorporated (“Eolas”) petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to review a judgment from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.[1] The case, Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Amazon.com, Inc.,[2] concerned whether claims directed towards methods of disseminating and interacting with media on the internet recite additional features beyond an abstract idea to render the claims patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.[3] Section 101 has enjoyed the limelight in recent years, amplified by the Court’s denial of certiorari in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC,[4] with some advocating for changes to the statutory bar,[5] and others advocating for Court’s precedent in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International[6] and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.[7] to be reviewed.

Courts use the Alice-Mayo two-step test[8] to determine whether a patent claim is eligible for patent protection under § 101. At step one, the court must determine “whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, namely a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea.”[9] If the court answers step one in the affirmative, the court moves to step two, which requires an analysis of whether “the claim elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, . . . contain an inventive concept sufficient to transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.”[10] The district court found that Eolas’ patent failed the Alice-Mayo test, and the Federal Circuit affirmed, but disagreed with the district court’s reasoning.[11] The Federal Circuit concluded that Eolas’ patent claims “are directed to an abstract idea under Alice step one,” because “[s]imply put, interacting with data objects on the World Wide Web is an abstraction.”[12] The Court noted that the district court erred by failing to consider Alice-Mayo step two, but nevertheless concluded that Eolas’ patent “does not recite additional features beyond the claimed abstract idea . . . .”[13]

The questions presented before the Court mainly address Eolas’ patent claims under § 101 jurisprudence.[14] However, one argument in particular strikes a familiar cord that resonates with recent concern over the application of § 101: “Confusion pervades the application of Alice’s two-step framework” and the Court’s intervention is needed to alleviate the “[e]ntrenched divisions within this nation’s sole patent court [that] have left eligibility law in disarray.”[15] And should the Court grant certiorari (at least in part), this argument is likely to control the resolution of the third and final question presented: “Whether the claims of the ’507 patent are eligible for patenting under § 101 and Alice.”[16]

II. Petitioner’s Arguments

Eolas made several arguments in favor of its patents validity, but the most noteworthy arguments surround the workability of the Alice-Mayo test. In particular, Eolas highlights that “every judge on [the Federal Circuit] request[s] Supreme Court clarification” on the application of § 101.[17] Eolas cites numerous opinions of the Federal Circuit, claiming that “Federal Circuit judges have shown no sign of convergence since [several] splintering rehearing denials,” which has spawned “mounting confusion” on how the Alice-Mayo test should be applied.[18] Eolas argues that the Federal Circuit’s confusion “hinders all those who must apply [the test] in the first instance,” bolstered by remarks from renowned patent attorneys, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), and even the Solicitor General.[19] Eolas caps their arguments by proclaiming that its case is the ideal vehicle for the Court to provide guidance, especially considering the ubiquity of computer-related patents.[20]

III. Response

Amazon responded on July 31, 2024. In regard to Eolas’ argument about the Alice-Mayo test’s workability, Amazon contends that no confusion exists, arguing that conflicting viewpoints demonstrate mere disagreement, rather than the strength of the precedent.[21] In support, Amazon cites the “higher rate of affirmance” in matters of patent eligibility when compared to other bars on patentability, like novelty or obviousness.[22] In short, Amazon contends that Eolas’ arguments are conclusory and merely reflect Eolas’ dissatisfaction of the Federal Circuit’s holding, making the case one that is not ripe for review by the Supreme Court.[23]

IV. Relevance to Patent Law

The Court has yet to grant or deny the petition, but any resolution of the matter could serve to clarify the Alice-Mayo test. As noted by Eolas, the Alice-Mayo test has been rippled with controversy and confusion, so clarification would certainly help issuance decisions made at the USPTO. Considering that legislation is pending on the Senate floor, though, it would be unclear how much of a difference Court intervention would make. However, this legislation has been slow moving, so perhaps some interruption by the Court would put the legislative process in motion.

V. Docket Updates (23-1184)[24]

As of August 14, 2024, the case has been distributed for conference, set for September 30, 2024. Other filings include motions to extend and one amicus brief in support of Eolas.

[1] See, e.g., Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Eolas Techs. Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2022-1932, 2024 WL 371959 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 1, 2024), petition for cert. filed, No. 23-1184 (U.S. May 1, 2024).

[2] No. 2022-1932, 2024 WL 371959 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 1, 2024).

[3] Id. at *4.

[4] 967 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2020), cert. denied 142 S. Ct. 2902 (2022).

[5] See, e.g., Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023, S.2140. 118th Cong. (2023).

[6] 573 U.S. 208 (2014).

[7] 566 U.S. 66 (2012).

[8] Interchangeably referred to as “the Alice test.”

[9] See Eolas, 2024 WL 371959, at *4 (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 217).

[10] Id. (internal quotations omitted) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 78).

[11] Id. at 4-5, 7.

[12] Id. at *5.

[13] Id. at *6.

[14] Question Presented, Eolas Techs. Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2022-1932, 2024 WL 371959 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 1, 2024), petition for cert. filed, No. 23-1184 (U.S. May 1, 2024).

[15] Petition for Writ of Certiorari, supra note 1, at 25.

[16] Question Presented, supra note 14.

[17] Petition for Writ of Certiorari, supra note 1, at 26 (quoting Am. Axle, 977 F.3d at 1382).

[18] Id. (citing cases).

[19] Id. at 27-29.

[20] Id. at 30-31.

[21] Brief for Respondent at 29, Eolas Techs. Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2022-1932, 2024 WL 371959 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 1, 2024), petition for cert. filed, No. 23-1184 (U.S. May 1, 2024).

[22] Id. at 30.

[23] Id. at 33 (“[Eolas’ argument] is a case-specific one that provides no basis for certiorari.”).

[24] To view the docket, click the link here.