THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
PER CURIAM (DYK, MAYER, and REYNA, Circuit Judges).
AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.
That’s all she wrote. Literally. So read the entire order of The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit yesterday affirming the Southern District of New York’s summary judgment determination that a patent owned by seeming patent troll DietGoal represents an abstract idea, unpatentable under Section 101. This can’t bode well for DietGoal’s dozen or so other suits against website owners and app producers. The patent in suit is the latest to fall to the Supreme Court’s Alice standard.
The Abstract of the ’516 patent, while not determinative of the scope of the patent, certainly couldn’t have helped the plaintiff’s cause. It reads:
The method can include the following steps. First, the Meal Database and the Food Database can be prepared. Second, the user can use the Picture Menus to choose meals for a particular time period to correspond to a customized eating plan. Third, the user can decide whether or not to change one or more of the meals he has chosen for the particular time period. If the user decides to change his chosen meals, the user can edit or create new meals using the Meal Builder. If the user decides not to change his choices, or after the user changes his choices, the user can save the meals for the particular time period.
So…yeah. Make a list of meals (with pictures), pick one or more of those meals that you like and either change them or save them. That’s some innovative stuff right there. Judge Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York didn’t think so either, opining on summary judgment that “[t]he claims of the ’516 patent recite nothing more than the abstract concept of selecting meals for the day, according to one’s particular dietary goals and food preferences.” This suit, filed in 2012, likely would never have made it to court post-Alice.Tweet