Phoenix Licensing, LLC et al. v. Consumer Cellular, Inc.

Phoenix Licensing, LLC et al. v. Consumer Cellular, Inc., 16-cv-00152 (Payne, J.) (E.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2017)

Patent(s):

  • 5,987,434 | Entitled, “Apparatus and method for transacting marketing and sales of financial products”
  • 6,999,938 | Entitled, “Automated reply generation direct marketing system”
  • 7,856,375 | | Entitled, “Customized communication document creation system and method”
  • 7,860,744  Entitled, “System and method for automatically providing personalized notices concerning financial products and/or services”
  • 7,890,366 | Entitled, “Personalized communication documents, system and method for preparing same”
  • 8,073,735 | Entitled, “System and method for automating financial document compliance”
  • 8,234,184 | | Entitled, “Automated reply generation direct marketing system”
  • 8,352,317  Entitled, “System for facilitating production of variable offer communications”
  • 8,606,632 | Entitled, “System, method, and computer program product for selecting and presenting financial products and services”
  • 8,738,435 | Entitled, “Method and apparatus for presenting personalized content relating to offered products and services”

Disposition:               

Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss the patents as invalid for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter. 

Abstract Idea:

Yes

Something More:

No

Technology:              

Automated selection of financial products for appropriate clients    

Summary:                 

In analyzing ten representative claims of the 974 claims asserted, after having construed some, but not all claims, the court agreed with defendants that the patents were directed to the abstract idea of tailoring marketing communications to recipients. The claims did not have an inventive concept as they used standard computer technology and did not support Plaintiff’s argument that its invention solved a technical problem, as the problems included those such as “substantial amount of human involvement,” “lack of personalization,” and “high volume product distribution.” The court stated that these aren’t true technological problems solved by inventions found to be patent eligible.