The initial stage discerns if a patent pertains to ineligible content.
Subsequently, the focus shifts to check for an inventive concept that qualifies it for a patent.
Meta’s Intent Engine Trial: The Backstory of a Digital Duel
Based in Irving, Texas, Usability Sciences locked horns with the social media giant, previously known as Facebook Inc. and now rebranded as Meta Platforms Inc. At the heart of the dispute? Claims that Meta’s news feed had encroached upon Usability Sciences’ 2014 patent.
This patent encapsulated a method harnessing “historical intent data” to foresee and propose additional web pages.
However, in a dramatic turn in 2021, Judge Albright decreed that the research entity’s patent on web navigation didn’t actually encircle any patent-worthy subject.
This came after intense representations by Meta’s legal team, emphasizing the patent’s inconsistency with the Alice decision.
Undeterred, Usability Sciences rallied back, insisting that the intent engine—a sophisticated instrument deploying algorithms to assess user intent and suggest corresponding websites—was a game-changer for navigating the vast seas of the internet.
Meta’s Intent Engine Trial : Stakeholders Remain Mum
Representatives of both parties maintained a stoic silence, refraining from commenting on the unfolding saga.
Meta’s Intent Engine Trial: The Panel of Justice
U.S. Circuit Judges Pauline Newman, Jimmie V. Reyna, and Tiffany P. Cunningham comprised the esteemed panel for the Federal Circuit.
Legal Eagles Representing the Parties
Usability Sciences entrusted their case to Fred I. Williams, Michael Simons, Todd E. Landis, and John Wittenzellner from Williams Simons & Landis PLLC, while Meta leaned on the expertise of Heidi L. Keefe, Phillip E. Morton, and Mark R. Weinstein of Cooley LLP.
