The Central District of California recently granted dismissal of patent infringement claims concerning the generation and sharing of video content over social media, finding such content to be patent ineligible under the relevant legislation.
Playvuu, creators of the eponymous video generation app, sued Snapchat’s parent company, Snap Inc., alleging infringement of its patent for video-overlay and augmented-reality technology. Playvuu claimed that Snapchat incorporated certain of its patented video-altering features, which it allegedly demonstrated to the Snap team in a 2016 meeting to discuss a potential acquisition of Playvuu.
After Snap moved to dismiss the patent claim for ineligibility, the California Court analyzed the matter using the U.S. Supreme Court’s two-step framework from Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014).
In step one, the Court considered whether the claims, taken in their entirety, were “directed to a patent-ineligible concept” and rejected the argument that the claims recite an “innovative user interface”. The Court instead found that the claims recite an abstract idea without specific elements – namely, a method for generating and sharing audio/video content on a social network, which did not disclose any novel method to accomplish the known claimed tasks.
In step two, the Court sought to determine whether the additional elements transformed the nature of the claim so as to be patent-eligible. The Court found that the claims were too “results-oriented and suggest[ed] using off-the-shelf components… without providing specific requirements or specialized software for doing so.” As such, the Court found that the claimed idea could not constitute the inventive concept in the abstract and on its own.
Authors: Arash Rouhi and Roy Friedman, 2023/2024 Articling Student-At-Law
Photo Credit: https://unsplash.com/@thoughtcatalog
Authors
Expertise
Insights
-
Intellectual Property Litigation
Trademarks Opposition Board Moves to Digital-Only Submission of Confidential Information
As of June 1, 2026, the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) requires all confidential evidence and documentation in proceedings under sections 11.13, 38, or 45 of the Trademarks Act (the “Act”) to be… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Kansas City Chiefs Stars Sued for Trademark Infringement Over Steakhouse
The sneaker company, 1587 Sneakers, is reportedly suing Kansas City Chiefs players, Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce, along with their restaurant partners, for trademark infringement.1587 Sneakers… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Pecking Order Problem: Pudgy Penguins Faces Penguin Trademark Lawsuit
As reported by Bloomberg Law News, PEI Licensing (“PEI”), the owner of the Penguin apparel brand, has sued Pudgy Penguins NFT (“Pudgy Penguins”) for trademark infringement.Pudgy Penguins started as a… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Old Brand, New Problems? Nike’s Attempt to Revive “Total 90” Soccer Cleats
Nike is reportedly attempting to revive its classic “Total 90” soccer cleat line, but has encountered an unexpected setback. Total90, LLC has reportedly asserted that Nike is infringing its… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Swing and a Miss: The “All Rise” Trademark Attempt
As reported by Bloomberg, attempts to register marks covering the phrases “All Rise” and “Here Comes the Judge” were rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Hershey’s Kisses Go to Court – Federal Court of Appeal Decision in PIM Brands Inc. v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC
The Federal Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Promotion in Motion, Inc. (PIM Brands, Inc.) v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC offers fresh guidance on how courts evaluate survey evidence…