Ghaly Devices LLC v. Humor Rainbow, Inc.

Background

Ghaly Devices LLC alleged that Humor Rainbow, Inc.’s OkCupid mobile application infringed Claim 42 of U.S. Patent No. 6,685,479. Claim 42 described a device that collects answers from users, uses a personality-profile system and an algorithm to process the answers, matches information about two users, calculates their degree of compatibility, and displays that result. Ghaly alleged direct and indirect patent infringement based on Humor’s employees installing and using the OkCupid application on a smartphone.

Humor moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not plausibly state a claim for relief. The court considered the allegations in the amended complaint and the documents attached to it.

Patent Eligibility Under Section 101

The court applied the two-step framework for determining whether a patent claim covers eligible subject matter. First, it asks whether the claim is directed to an abstract idea. If so, it asks whether the claim contains an inventive concept—additional features that transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.

At the first step, the court held that Claim 42 was directed to the abstract ideas of human compatibility and matchmaking. It reasoned that matchmaking has long been performed by people and that the claim’s algorithm merely processed user information to identify compatible people. The court also found that the other claim elements—such as a housing, memory, communications capability, microprocessor, and display—were generic components of a computer or mobile phone. Putting a matchmaking algorithm on a computer did not change the claim’s basic character.

At the second step, the court held that Claim 42 lacked an inventive concept. In the court’s view, the claim described the routine process of collecting information, analyzing it with ordinary computer technology, and displaying the result. The claim’s use of personality information, compatibility scores, and colors or other display features did not make the process sufficiently unconventional. The court therefore concluded that Claim 42 covered patent-ineligible subject matter under Section 101.

Direct Infringement Allegations

The court separately considered whether Ghaly had plausibly alleged direct infringement. It interpreted the disputed portion of Claim 42 as requiring the device’s control program to perform three functions: produce personality attributes or behavioral parameters using a personality-profile system, match the processed information with information about another user, and calculate the degree of compatibility.

The court found that Ghaly had plausibly alleged that the OkCupid application and related functionality performed those functions. It rejected Humor’s argument that Ghaly had alleged that the compatibility calculation was performed only by the OkCupid server. The court also rejected, at the pleading stage, Humor’s argument that the personality-profile system had to be located on the device rather than on a server. The court therefore denied Humor’s motion to dismiss on the direct-infringement ground.

Disposition

Despite finding that direct infringement was plausibly alleged, the court granted Humor’s motion to dismiss because Claim 42 was patent-ineligible under Section 101. The court denied Ghaly leave to replead because it determined that amendment would be futile. Because no claims remained, the court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate pending motions, adjourn remaining dates, and close the case.