Linquet Technologies owns US Patent No. 10,163,318, which claims a system for “detecting placement or misplacement of objects.” The patent introduces the invention:
A radio tag associated with an object to be linked, tracked, or both is exposed along with an electronic device to communicate with the tag and update information to an external device such as a computer, network, or cloud. You can send information such as time, location (including latitude, longitude, altitude), speed, direction, temperature, ID for real-time linking/tracking and analysis, or historical view. In one embodiment, the electronic device for communicating with the tag is a mobile phone, tablet computer, laptop computer, electronic glasses, or wrist watch.
of Linquet Techs., Inc. vs. Tile, Inc.., No. 3:20-CV-05153-JD, 2022 WL 2812185 (ND Cal. 18 July 2022), Linquet filed a patent against Tile, Inc. The asserted patent claims are directed to ineligible subject matter. The Court recently addressed Linquet’s Second Amended Complaint (SAC).
Alice step 1
In an earlier order, the court held that the claims were directed to “the age-old concept of using markers and identifiers to avoid losing things.” The patent “simply implements the concept of tracking an object using computer technology and is not an abstraction.”
Linquet argued that the patent was intended to “enhance the functionality and performance of networks,” but the court was not persuaded. I was using a community driven tracking system that needed to be resolved. “
Expert declarations argued that the prior art did not provide a “privacy-preserving, scalable, cloud-based, community-driven solution” for tracking items. It may be true that it has brought about”, but pointed out that the expert’s declaration is related to novelty and obviousness. The court further noted that the patent itself was “silent as to whether such problems exist and need to be resolved,” and therefore the court has “not based on the plain language of the patent SAC and technical It refused to accept the claims in the House Declaration.”
As a result, the court determined that the patent was not directed to a technical solution, but rather to the abstract idea cited.
Alice step 2
In Step 2, Linquet argues that claim 1 of the patent improves “privacy, scalability, and efficiency in an unconventional way” and “networks tags and electronic devices in an unfamiliar way.” Contains assertions about the claimed system used. , routine and customary for dealing with technical problems. However, the court noted that the patent does not explain how tags and electronic devices are constructed or used in unconventional ways.
The SAC and expert declarations also noted overcoming prior art, but the Court noted that “it is not surprising that the §101 patent eligibility search and, for example, the §102 novelty search may sometimes overlap. Although true, the claim of a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”
Finally, the court rejected Linquet’s contention that factual disputes barred dismissal, stating that any “factual dispute” is based on a concluding argument. Therefore, the court prejudicedly dismissed his SAC.
* * *
One of the patent claims reads:
A system for detecting placement or misplacement of an object, comprising:
A radio tag associated with an object.
A first set of instructions stored on a first non-transitory storage medium, the first set of instructions being executed by one or more processors in a first electronic device associated with the wireless tag. automatically causes one or more processors in the first electronic device to:
Detect one or more signals from radio tags.
A position of the first electronic device is determined.
Determining a status of the wireless tag in response to the strength or absence of one or more signals detected by the first electronic device, the status being that the wireless tag and the first electronic device are within a predetermined range or that the wireless tag is within range and the first electronic device is out of range.
The location and status of the first electronic device are transmitted to the external electronic device according to the status indicating that the wireless tag and the first electronic device are within a predetermined range.When
The position and status of the first electronic device are transmitted to the external electronic device according to the status indicating that the wireless tag and the first electronic device are out of the predetermined range.
A second set of instructions stored in a second non-transitory storage medium, the second set of instructions being executed by one or more processors in a second electronic device not associated with the wireless tag When done, it invokes one or more processors in the second electronic device. Automatically on electronic devices:
Detect one or more signals from radio tags.
A position of the second electronic device is determined.
One or more signals from the radio tag are used to determine the identifier of the radio tag.When
Sending the location and identifier of the second electronic device to the external electronic device.
.
Comments
Post a Comment