Health Discovery Corp (HDVY)

[LocWolf]

Not sure but here is an older web link and as you read through it you will also come to HDC/Intel

https://www.quinnemanuel.com/the-firm/publications/lead-article-u-s-district-judge-alan-albright-grants-first-two-section-101-motions/

Health Discovery Corporation v. Intel Corp.

A few weeks later, Judge Albright issued a second order under Section 101—this time granting a defendant’s motion to dismiss, albeit after the Markman hearing. In Health Discovery Corp. v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-CV-666-ADA, 2021 WL 6116891 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 27, 2021), the four asserted patents related to the ability of so-called “learning machines” to identify patterns in datasets that best enable the classification of data, a process known as “Recursive Feature Elimination.” Id. at *1. The defendant, Intel Corporation, argued that the suit should be dismissed because the patent claims were directed only to an abstract mathematical analysis.

After an extensive discussion of the challenge of applying the Federal Circuit’s seemingly inconsistent post-Alice precedents, Judge Albright agreed with Intel’s position, observing that although “accused infringers invoking § 101 in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion face an uphill scrabble . . . Intel has been able to surmount these procedural obstacles.” Id. at *4, *11. At step one of Alice, Judge Albright viewed the claims as “merely produc[ing] data with improved quality relative to that produced by conventional mathematical models,” and so “merely improv[ing] or enhanc[ing] an abstract idea.” Id. at *11 (internal quotation marks omitted). At step two, Judge Albright held that the complaint had “fail[ed] to allege an inventive concept.” Id. at *12. Apart from what he regarded as the abstract idea of improving a mathematical model, the patent claims did not entail any further concept “capable of moving the claims out of the realm of abstract ideas.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). It was not sufficient, he explained, that “some asserted claims are limited to a particular field of invention or input data, like ‘gene expression data’ or ‘biologic data.’” Id. Nor did “requir[ing] a generic computer to perform” the mathematical process salvage the claims. Id.

Significantly, Judge Albright dismissed the plaintiff’s claims without prejudice, echoing the views of Eastern District of Texas Judge Rodney Gilstrap that “‘[t]here is a wide gulf between a Defendant affirmatively showing by clear and convincing evidence that claims are ineligible under both steps of the Alice inquiry and a Plaintiff failing to plead adequate facts addressing the analytical steps called for in Alice.” Id. at *12–*13 (quoting Mad Dogg Ath., Inc. v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., No. 2:20-CV-00382-JRG, 2021 WL 4206175, at *7 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 15, 2021)).

Conclusion

Judge Albright’s rulings under Section 101 provide useful insight into his approach to Section 101 arguments on a number of issues. First, he remains unlikely to grant a Section 101 motion until after the Markman hearing and the close of fact discovery. Second, if he grants a motion to dismiss under Section 101, the dismissal is likely to be without prejudice. Third, in conducting the substantive Alice analysis for software patents, Judge Albright has focused on whether the patent claims solve problems “rooted in computer technology,” USC IP, 2021 WL 6690275, at *5, or otherwise involve an improvement to the functionality of the computer systems or processes themselves. As a result, so-called “black box” patents that fail to recite steps that software must perform to accomplish the specified results are vulnerable to invalidation. Finally, Judge Albright has recognized “the difficulty in applying Alice with any consistency” and the “inconsistency riddling § 101 jurisprudence.” Health Discovery Corp., 2021 WL 6116891, at *10. For that reason, he has made clear that in individual cases he will take his cues from Federal Circuit precedents “analyzing patents most like those under review.” Id.