LookSmart Group, Inc. v. Google, LLC

Background

LookSmart alleged that Google infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,356,530, titled “Systems and Methods of Retrieving Relevant Information.” The patent concerns retrieving relevant information from large collections of information, including the World Wide Web. LookSmart accused Google of infringement through Google Search’s technology and services.

Google moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the patent claims patent-ineligible subject matter under Section 101 of the Patent Act. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The parties did not dispute that independent claim 1 was representative of the patent’s claims for purposes of the analysis.

Patent Eligibility Analysis

The court applied the two-step test for patent eligibility. First, it considered whether claim 1 was directed to an abstract idea. The claim described crawling the web, assigning page weights, calculating intrinsic and extrinsic ranking factors, combining those factors, and creating an indexed database to produce ranked search results.

The court found that the claim was directed to the abstract idea of “collecting, storing, indexing, and ranking” information. It emphasized that claim 1 did not specify how to calculate the page weight, content score, anchor weight, intrinsic ranking factor, or extrinsic ranking factor. In the court’s view, the claim stated desired functions or outcomes without limiting them to a particular method or technical solution.

The court then considered whether the claim contained an “inventive concept”—an element or combination of elements that adds significantly more than the abstract idea itself. It found that the claim used generic computer, network, and Internet components. The court also found that using hypertext links, combining intrinsic and extrinsic rankings, and pre-indexing pages did not supply an inventive concept because the claim did not explain how those features were implemented in an inventive or unconventional way.

The court rejected LookSmart’s reliance on improvements described in the patent’s specification. It explained that unclaimed details from the specification generally cannot be imported into the claims and that the specification did not cure the claims’ lack of a specific implementation. The court also distinguished decisions in which the claims were tied to concrete, specifically described improvements or techniques.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Google asked the court to dismiss LookSmart’s complaint with prejudice. The court was skeptical that additional allegations could establish patent eligibility, but it could not definitively conclude that amendment would be futile. It therefore granted LookSmart one opportunity to file an amended complaint.

The court granted Google’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Any amended complaint had to be filed within 21 days of the order. Because the ruling was made on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, this summary classifies it as a procedural order under the stated classification convention, even though the court analyzed patent eligibility.