DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com
[2] Both Alice and DDR Holdings are legal decisions relevant to the debate about whether software and business methods are patentable subject matter under Title 35 of the United States Code §101.
[3] The Federal Circuit applied the framework articulated in Alice to uphold the validity of the patents on webpage display technology at issue in DDR Holdings.
DDR filed a lawsuit against twelve entities including Hotels.com, National Leisure Group, World Travel Holdings, Digital River, Expedia, Travelocity.com, and Orbitz Worldwide for patent infringement.
[citation needed] The court's § 101 analysis focused on the '399 patent, entitled "Methods of expanding commercial opportunities for internet websites through coordinated offsite marketing.
Some Internet affiliate sales vendors have begun placing "return to referring website" links on their order confirmation screens, an approach that is largely ineffective.
[24] Judge Mayer authored a dissenting opinion, arguing that the ‘399 patent was "long on obfuscation but short on substance[,]" and criticized the invention as "so rudimentary that it borders on the comical."
[citation needed] At this step, the court observed that distinguishing between a patentable invention and an abstract idea "can be difficult, as the line separating the two is not always clear.
"[27] Judge Chen acknowledged that the invention could be characterized as an abstract idea, such as "making two e-commerce web pages look alike," but also noted that the asserted claims of the ‘399 patent "do not recite a mathematical algorithm .
[28] However, the Federal Circuit Court never offered a precise definition of an unpatentable "abstract idea" nor did it explicitly decide whether the '399 claims are directed to such ineligible subject matter.
[citation needed]Instead, the court concludes that, even stipulating any of the characterizations of the alleged abstract idea put forth by defense counsel and the dissent, the '399 claims still contain an inventive concept sufficient to render them patent-eligible under step two of the Alice analysis.
Because the invention "overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink," it did not employ mere ordinary use of a computer or the Internet.
[citation needed] Further, the court held, the claims included additional features that limit their scope to not preempt every application of any of the abstract ideas suggested by NLG.
"[30] Unlike other cases recently decided under the Alice framework, the DDR court stated that the ‘399 patent does not "broadly and generically claim use of the Internet to perform an abstract business practice (with insignificant added activity)."
The claimed system changes the normal operation of the Internet so that the visitor is directed to a "hybrid web page that presents product information from the third-party and visual 'look and feel' elements from the host website.
[citation needed] Although the problem solved by the invention arguably was particular to the Internet, the court concluded that the steps of the claims are "an abstraction – an idea, having no particular concrete or tangible form."
[32] Professor Crouch, in the Patently-O blog, commented: "The case is close enough to the line that I expect a strong push for en banc review and certiorari.
Although Judge Chen’s analysis is admirable, I cannot see it standing up to Supreme Court review and, the holding here is in dreadful tension with the Federal Circuit’s recent Ultramercial decision.
"[35] As one professorial commentator noted, "Because DDR Holdings is the only post-Alice Federal Circuit decision so far to uphold a patent against a § 101 challenge, patentees have been quick to cite it and accused infringers have found ways to distinguish it.
