EscapeX IP LLC v. Block, Inc.

Background

EscapeX IP LLC alleged that Block, Inc. infringed U.S. Patent No. 9,009,113, titled “System and Method for Generating Artist-Specified Dynamic Albums.” The patent describes a system that allows an artist or other provider to update songs or other media in an album stored on a user device without the user’s intervention. EscapeX alleged that Block infringed every claim by generating curated playlists that change based on users’ activity.

Block moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. Block argued that the patent claims were directed to an abstract idea and therefore were not eligible for patent protection under Section 101 of the Patent Act.

Patent-Eligibility Analysis

The court applied the two-step test from Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. First, it asked whether the claims were directed to an abstract idea. Second, because it found that they were, it asked whether the claims added an “inventive concept”—something significantly more than the abstract idea itself.

At the first step, the court characterized the patent claims as directed to the abstract idea of remotely updating content on a user device. The claims described an artist sending a command, a computer system generating “album parameters,” and a remote user device updating the album in response. The court found that this was essentially communication between computing devices and remote control of stored media content.

The court rejected EscapeX’s argument that the patent claimed a specific technological improvement. It concluded that the claims did not improve computer hardware, software, or the way media was encoded. Instead, they used generic computing devices and conventional functions. The court also found that the claims stated desired results without explaining in sufficient detail how the album parameters were generated, communicated, or implemented. The patent specification discussed maintaining control over content when a user device had no network connection, but the court said that feature was not included in the claim language and therefore did not affect the first-step analysis.

At the second step, the court found no inventive concept. EscapeX identified artist control over a dynamic album as the inventive feature, but the court concluded that this was only an application of the abstract idea of communication between computing devices. The claims required ordinary processors, computer instructions, commands, transmission of album parameters, and changes to computer code. The dependent claims added features such as artist-specific applications and music leases, but the court found those features also described conventional computer functions.

Disposition

The court concluded that the ’113 Patent claims were directed to an abstract idea and were not eligible for patent protection. It therefore granted Block’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the First Amended Complaint.

The court declined to grant EscapeX leave to amend. It determined that the problem with the claims was substantive, making amendment futile; EscapeX had not requested leave to amend or identified facts that would cure the problem; and the court had previously allowed an amendment and warned that EscapeX would not receive another opportunity to address the issues raised by the motion to dismiss. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for Block and close the case.