Music streaming giant Pandora recently prevailed in a patent lawsuit filed by Bluebonnet Internet Media Services. The lawsuit centered on Pandora\u2019s use of auto-generated music playlists tailored to its listeners\u2019 preferences. On September 7th, a Federal District Court Judge ruled that\u00a0the patents involved were fundamentally addressed to an abstract idea \u2013 and should have never been issued in the first place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The patents in question describe a method for using a \u201ccomputer system for generating media playlists based on a user\u2019s ratings.\u201d As users rate songs, a \u201cplaylist generator\u201d automatically creates playlists based on those preferences. Bluebonnet acquired the patents from now-defunct tech startup Friskit Inc. and filed the lawsuit against Pandora in August 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“[T]he patents involved were fundamentally addressed to an abstract idea \u2013 and should have never been issued in the first place.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
U.S. courts have long held that abstract ideas and natural laws are not patentable because they form the basic \u201cbuilding blocks of human ingenuity.\u201d The broad category of \u201cabstract ideas\u201d includes common fundamental commercial practices, such as tailoring a product based on the preferences and traits of the target consumer.\u00a0District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled that the patents in question fit that mold. They were essentially a method of tailoring a product (music playlists) based on a consumer\u2019s preferences (song ratings).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nevertheless, an abstract idea\u00a0can<\/em>\u00a0be patented if the patent describes an \u201cinventive concept\u201d that transforms the claims into something \u201csignificantly more\u201d than a monopoly on the abstract concept itself. The U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s 2014 decision in\u00a0Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l\u00a0<\/em>clarified that merely implementing an abstract idea in a generic computer environment, without solving a specific technological problem or improving the technical function of a computer, is not enough to qualify as an \u201cinventive concept\u201d and save an abstract-concept patent from invalidity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Here, the judge ruled that Bluebonnet\u2019s patents did not embody an \u201cinventive concept.\u201d While the judge agreed that the patent \u201cmay capture the core of a good business idea,\u201d\u00a0the implementation of the abstract concept of playlist generating to a computer system does not save the patent from invalidity. Pandora was granted judgment on the pleadings, invalidating Bluebonnet\u2019s patents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
While the application of the principles articulated in\u00a0Alice\u00a0<\/em>is relatively straightforward here, it\u2019s interesting to note the identifies of the parties. Pandora, of course, is a well-known player in the music-streaming world. Founded in 2000, Pandora boasted\u00a052 million active listeners in 2021<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Bluebonnet, by contrast, is a Texas-based limited liability company with little-to-no online presence. In fact,\u00a0Bluebonnet is a nonpracticing entity (NPE). NPEs hold patents, but do not actually implement or develop the patented technology; instead, they generate revenue by licensing their patents. Often, this licensing occurs only after the threat (or filing) of litigation.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
NPEs that \u201copportunistically assert weak patents\u201d are sometime referred to as \u201cpatent trolls<\/a>.\u201d Often, defendants in a patent lawsuit will assess the \u201cnuisance value\u201d of the suit; settling and paying the licensing fee may make more financial sense than fighting the lawsuit, even if the defendant believes the suit is meritless. That\u2019s because determining whether a technology actually infringes on a patent is often expensive and time-consuming \u2013 the average patent litigation\u00a0costs between $2.3 million and $4 million<\/a>\u00a0and can last up to three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“A spokesperson for Pandora referred to the lawsuit as a ‘shakedown.'”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Here, Bluebonnet fits the patent troll description. Bluebonnet does not implement the patented technology, and the patent asserted proved to be a weak one indeed, given that it was held invalid for lack of subject matter eligibility.\u00a0A spokesperson for Pandora referred to the lawsuit as a \u201cshakedown.\u201dFortunately, Pandora prevailed against such a weak patent during a relatively early stage in the case, in a motion for judgment on the pleadings.\u00a0This represents a continuation of the trend of defendants in patent infringement suits prevailing under\u00a0Alice<\/em>\u00a0against overbroad software patents.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Although the specific software in this case pertained to music playlists, the concept of tailoring a product to a user\u2019s preferences is in widespread use among media and technology companies. Most video streaming services have some form of \u201crecommended for you\u201d feature. YouTube recommends videos based on a user\u2019s viewing habits. Social media platforms and web browsers suggest news stories based on the same kind of input. Amazon recommends products based on a user\u2019s browsing history.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The outcome of Pandora\u2019s case should reassure all of these industries. Although Netflix and YouTube may not run afoul of this specific patent,\u00a0<\/strong>the reasoning in this decision is a clue that similar patents for user behavior-based recommendations might be held ineligible as well. Although Bluebonnet has appealed the case, Judge Chhabria\u2019s decision\u00a0tracks closely with cases that have raised similar questions<\/a>, and is unlikely to be overturned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ben Rhodes<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ben is a second-year law student from Concord, North Carolina. He graduated from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro in 2015. His interests include employment and labor law and energy law. Outside of law school, he spends his time with his wife, travelling the country and watching baseball.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Music streaming giant Pandora recently prevailed in a patent lawsuit filed by Bluebonnet Internet Media Services. The lawsuit centered on Pandora\u2019s use of auto-generated music playlists tailored to its listeners\u2019 preferences. On September 7th, a Federal District Court Judge ruled that\u00a0the patents involved were fundamentally addressed to an abstract idea \u2013 and should have never …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":true,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[383,380,382,378,379,381],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8755"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8755"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8755\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8756,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8755\/revisions\/8756"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8755"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8755"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8755"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}