AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC Case Brief

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit2016
838 F.3d 1253

Audio lesson available for this case

LSD+ subscribers can listen to a recorded discussion of this brief - the full facts, holding, and reasoning in audio form.

Unlock with LSD+

Complete case briefs with LSD+

Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

4 min read

tl;dr: A patent for streaming regional broadcasts to cell phones outside the broadcast area was invalidated. The court found it claimed the abstract idea of out-of-region content delivery using only generic, conventional mobile technology.

Legal Significance: This case reinforces that merely applying an abstract idea to a specific technological environment (e.g., cellular phones) using generic components does not satisfy the inventive concept requirement for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC owned U.S. Patent No. 7,970,379, which claimed a system and method for streaming regional broadcast signals to cellular telephones located outside the broadcaster’s geographic region. The representative claim described a system where a cellular phone could request and receive network-based content from a regional broadcaster via a streaming signal. The system required the phone to be configured to wirelessly download an application and to contain a graphical user interface (GUI) allowing the user to select the desired content. Affinity sued DIRECTV and other defendants for infringement. The defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing the patent claims were directed to non-patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court granted the motion, agreeing with a magistrate judge’s report that the patent was directed to the abstract idea of disseminating regional content to out-of-region users and that the claims lacked an inventive concept.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Are patent claims for a system that delivers regional broadcast content to a cellular phone outside the broadcast region, using a downloadable application and a graphical user interface, directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101?

Yes, the patent claims are invalid. The court held that the claims Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, s

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

About IRAC analysis

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.

Legal Issue

Are patent claims for a system that delivers regional broadcast content to a cellular phone outside the broadcast region, using a downloadable application and a graphical user interface, directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101?

Conclusion

This decision reinforces the high bar for patent eligibility for computer-implemented inventions, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostr

Legal Rule

To determine patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a court applies Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tem

Legal Analysis

The Federal Circuit applied the two-step *Alice/Mayo* framework. At step one, the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excep

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • Claims for streaming regional broadcasts to out-of-region cell phones are invalid
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial