Contour IP Holding, LLC v. GoPro, Inc.

Background

Contour accused GoPro of infringing claims involving point-of-view digital video cameras. The asserted claims were Claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,890,954 and Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 8,896,694. The court treated Claim 11 as representative of both claims for the patent-eligibility analysis.

Claim 11 described a portable point-of-view camera with a lens, image sensor, wireless connection device, and camera processor. The camera would create two video streams, send the lower-quality stream wirelessly to a personal portable computing device, retain the higher-quality stream, and receive signals from the device to adjust camera settings.

The court had previously granted Contour partial summary judgment on infringement of Claim 11 in the initial case. It had also previously denied GoPro’s motion for judgment on the pleadings asserting that the patents covered patent-ineligible subject matter, while stating that GoPro could raise the argument again at summary judgment.

Patent-Eligibility Analysis

The court applied the two-step framework from Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. At step one, it asks whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea. At step two, it asks whether the claim elements, individually or in combination, add enough to transform that idea into a patent-eligible invention.

At step one, the court concluded that the claims were directed to the abstract ideas of creating and transmitting video at two resolutions and remotely adjusting video settings. The court reasoned that the claims described these functions in general, result-focused terms and did not specify a new technical method for performing them. The lens, image sensor, wireless connection device, and camera processor were described only as generic components performing their basic functions.

Contour argued that the claims provided specific improvements for point-of-view cameras by allowing users to preview recordings and adjust settings when the camera was mounted and difficult to reach. The court rejected that argument, concluding that the claimed solution was itself the abstract idea rather than a specific technical implementation of it.

At step two, the court concluded that the individual claim elements and their ordered combination did not provide an inventive concept. The court rejected Contour’s reliance on Bluetooth technology and a specially developed driver because those features appeared in embodiments described in the specification but were not claimed in Claim 11. The court also rejected arguments based on GoPro’s difficulty understanding or implementing the technology, reasoning that the claims did not require any particular technology beyond the generic components they recited.

Disposition

The court concluded that Claim 11, and all claims for which it was representative, were invalid under Section 101 of the Patent Act. GoPro’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity was granted.

The court stated that the remaining motions were denied as moot. The order’s conclusion specifically states that Contour’s motion for summary judgment and GoPro’s motion to exclude Contour’s damages expert were denied as moot. The court also reviewed proposed redactions concerning confidential technical details, licensing terms, and third-party business information and found that they met the required “compelling reasons” standard. The text provided does not separately state a formal grant or denial of each sealing motion in the conclusion.

The court said the ruling appeared to resolve all claims and counterclaims, vacated the pretrial conference, and directed that any party believing an unresolved claim or counterclaim remained should file a notice within ten days. Otherwise, the court stated that it would enter judgment in both cases for GoPro. The opinion does not state that judgment had already been entered.