Federal Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Patent Claims Directed To Pixel Animation As Ineligible Subject Matter Under 35 U.S.C. ' 101

• Published date: 21 February 2024
• Subject Matter: Intellectual Property, Patent
• Law Firm: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
• Author: Sunny Akarapu and C. Brandon Rash

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of patent claims directed to changing the position of components in an image to create the appearance of movement, i.e., animation. The court agreed that the claims are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. ' 101 because they perform digital animation, an abstract idea, without including any technological improvement to computer functionality.

Plotagraph, Inc. v. Lightricks, Ltd., No. 2023-1048 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 22, 2024) (nonprecedential).

Plotagraph sued Lightricks in the Southern District of Texas for allegedly infringing five patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,182,641. The patents are directed to technology allowing a user to select a set of pixels within a photo or video file and then shift them to simulate motion. The independent claims of the patents all generally recite: '(1) a preamble identifying a computer system, computer program product, method, or computer-readable media, for automating the shifting of pixels; (2) a series of preparatory steps or features initiated by a user; and (3) a final pixel-shifting step.' The court deemed claim 12 of the '641 patent to be representative, which recites the steps of:

receiving a first indication of a first starting point through a user interface, wherein the first starting point is received through a user selection of a first portion of a first image frame;

receiving, through the user interface, a first direction associated with the first starting point;

creating a first digital link extending in the first direction from the first starting point;

selecting a first set of pixels that are along the first digital link and extend in the first direction away from the first starting point; and

shifting the first set of pixels, in the first image frame, in the first direction.

The court analyzed eligibility using the Supreme Court's two-step Alice framework. In step one, a court determines whether the claims are 'directed to a patent-ineligible concept,' such as an abstract idea. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014). If they are, the court proceeds to step two'the search for an 'inventive concept'and considers 'the elements of each claim both individually and 'as an ordered combination' to determine whether the additional elements 'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application.' Id. (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Lab'ys, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78-79 (2012)).

1. Alice Step One

Addressing Alice...