skip to Main Content
Call Now: (800) 768-9399

Another Patent Eligible Software Invention – Cooperative Entertainment, Inc. v. Kollective Technology, Inc.

Cooperative Entertainment, Inc. v. Kollective Technology, Inc., 963 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2020) is another recent case where the Federal Circuit held that Cooperative Entertainment’s patent were patent eligible under 35 USC § 101. This case provides valuable insight into how the courts are currently interpreting patent eligibility in the context of software-related inventions.

The Patent at Issue – US Patent No. 9,432,452

Cooperative Entertainment’s US Patent No. 9,432,452 (“’452 Patent”) related to methods and systems for delivering content, such as video games and other software applications, over a computer network. The ‘452 Patent addressed problems with conventional methods of delivering such content, which were often slow, unreliable, and prone to interruption.

The key innovation in the ‘452 Patent was a method for distributing content in a peer-to-peer fashion, using a network of connected devices to speed up delivery and improve reliability. The ‘452 Patent described a system where content could be stored on multiple devices connected to the network, and then transmitted to other devices on the network that requested the content. The system used various techniques to manage the distribution of content, including tracking the availability of content on different devices and selecting the fastest and most reliable source for each request.

Claim 1 of the ‘452 Patent recites the following:

1. A system for virtualized computing peer-based content sharing comprising:

at least one content delivery server computer constructed and configured for electrical connection and communication via at least one communications network; and

at least one peer-to-peer (P2P) dynamic network including a multiplicity of peer nodes, wherein the multiplicity of peer nodes consume the same content within a predetermined time, wherein the multiplicity of peer nodes are constructed and configured for electronic communication over the at least one P2P dynamic network, wherein the at least one P2P dynamic network is based on at least one trace route; wherein the multiplicity of peer nodes is distributed outside controlled networks and/or content distribution networks (CDNs) that are included within the at least one communications network;

wherein the at least one content delivery server computer is operable to store viewer information, check content request, use the trace route to segment requested content, find peers, and return client-block pairs;

wherein distribution of P2P content delivery over the at least one P2P dynamic network is based on content segmentation;

wherein content segmentation is based on CDN address resolution, trace route to CDN and P2P server manager, dynamic feedback from peers reporting traffic rates between individual peer and its neighbors, round-robin, and other server-side scheduling/resource allocation techniques.

‘452 patent at claim 1.

The Procedural Background

Cooperative Entertainment’s appealed to the Federal Circuit district court’s decision to dismiss Cooperative Entertainment’s amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which held all claims of the ‘452 Patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In the district court case, Defendant Kollective Technology, Inc. (“Kollective”) filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Cooperative Entertainment’s ‘452 patent was invalid for failing to satisfy the patent eligibility requirements of 35 USC § 101. Kollective argued that the ‘452 Patent was invalid because the ‘452 Patent is directed to the abstract idea of “peer-to-peer content delivery” which was a well-known concept in the field of computer networking.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit rejected Kollective’s argument and held that the district court erred in dismissing Cooperative Entertainment’s Complaint by finding that the ‘452 Patent was patent eligible. The court applied the two-step Alice/Mayo framework for patent eligibility, which requires courts to first determine whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea, and then to determine whether the claims contain an inventive concept that is sufficient to transform the patent-ineligible concept into a patent-eligible invention.  Directly below is the Federal Circuit’s analysis under the Alice/Mayo framework.

Step One: Abstract Idea

The Federal Circuit held that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather to a specific method of using a peer-to-peer network to deliver content. The court found that Cooperative Entertainment’s ‘452 Patent addressed problems with conventional methods of delivering content and provided a new and improved way of delivering content using a peer-to-peer network.

The Federal Circuit reasoned that ‘452 Patent’s claims recite a specific technical solution that is an inventive concept, namely, it recites a particular arrangement of peer nodes for distributing content “outside controlled networks and/or [CDNs].”

Step Two: Inventive Concept

The Federal Circuit also held that the claims contained an inventive concept that was sufficient to transform the patent-ineligible concept into a patent-eligible invention. The court found that the claims described a specific way of using a peer-to-peer network to deliver content that was not well-known in the prior art. The court noted that Cooperative Entertainment’s ‘452 Patent provided several specific technical solutions to problems with conventional methods of delivering content, such as techniques for managing the distribution of content and selecting the fastest and most reliable source for each request.

The Federal Circuit’s Decision

In conclusion, the Federal Circuit held that Cooperative Entertainment’s patents were patent eligible under 35 USC § 101 because they were directed to a specific method of using a peer-to-peer network to deliver content and contained an inventive concept that was sufficient to transform the patent-ineligible concept into a patent-eligible invention.

This case provides valuable guidance for inventors and practitioners seeking to obtain patent protection for software-related inventions. It highlights the importance of describing a specific implementation of an idea, rather than simply claiming the idea itself. It also demonstrates the value of providing specific technical solutions to problems with conventional methods to demonstrate an inventive concept that is sufficient to transform a patent-ineligible concept into a patent-eligible invention.

If you have any questions about software related inventions, 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections, or would like advice on overcoming a rejection from the USPTO, then please do not hesitate to reach out and schedule a meeting with one of our attorneys. The attorneys at The Plus IP Firm have prosecuted hundreds of patent applications for software related inventions for our clients and we can assist you. This article was authored Derek Fahey, Esq.

Back To Top