Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in AI Visualize, Inv. v. Nuance Communications, Inc., No. 22-2109 (April 4, 2024), affirming the dismissal of infringement claims asserting four patents relating to the 3D visualization of 2D medical scans because the asserted claims were directed to an abstract idea that had not been transformed into patent-eligible subject matter.
MRIs and other medical imaging systems typically create 2D images, which are stored as a “volume visualization dataset” (VVD). Prior art taught how to use 2D VVDs to present 3D views of scanned areas for diagnosis and prognosis. The ability to exploit this technology is, however, limited by the processing power and bandwidth of users’ computers. AI Visualize’s asserted patents purport to solve the problem “by teaching a method and system … for receiving, storing, processing and viewing large medical scans via a low-bandwidth web portal.” AI Visualize asserted its patents against Nuance Communications and Mach7 Technologies in the District of Delaware. Nuance moved to dismiss, arguing the asserted claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court agreed. AI Visualize appealed.
The Federal Circuit affirmed. Applying Third Circuit law to the 12(b)(6) dismissal, the Federal Circuit reviewed AI Visualize’s claims de novo following the two-step Alice inquiry. Step one involved determining whether the asserted claims are “directed to” patent-ineligible subject matter, an inquiry “examining the ‘focus of the claimed advance over the prior art’” and the “specific means or method that improves the relevant technology.” AI Visualize argued its claims required the creation of virtual views from the existing VVD “on the fly.” But the Court found the asserted claims merely included “functionally-oriented steps” “directed to converting data and using computers to collect, manipulate, and display data.” The creation of a virtual view from the existing VVD was, the Court held, merely “abstract data manipulation.”
Alice step two considers whether the claims recite something “significantly more” than the abstract idea. AI Visualize argued the creation of a virtual view upon user demand satisfied this step. The Court disagreed: “AI Visualize’s claim that the ‘virtual views’ are created ‘on the fly,’ without more, cannot support patent eligibility at Alice step two.”
