In August 2017, iLife Technologies, Inc., a Los Angeles hardware and software maker, won a ruling against Nintendo, which was accused of infringing a patent for motion-sensing technologies used in its Wii products.

In January 2020, a Northern District of Texas judge found that under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Alice v. CLS Bank (2014), the technology outlined in the patent was “unpatentable.” Alice v. CLS Bank found that abstract ideas implemented by computers did not qualify for patent protection. Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn, Northern District of Texas, overturned the $10.1 million verdict against Nintendo.

The decision in Alice v. CLS Bank established a two-part test to ascertain whether a software patent was unpatentable under US Patent Law for claiming ineligible subject matter. The first part of the test is whether the patent claims are directed to a non-patentable concept, such as an abstract idea. If so, the second part of the test comes into play: the court will then consider whether the claim’s other elements transform the claim into a concept that is eligible for a patent. The Alice decision held that known ideas are abstract and that just saying that a conventional computer uses the concept does not make the subject matter patentable.

The patent in question in the iLife case is U.S. Patent No. 6864796, “Systems Within a Communications Device for Evaluating Movement of a Body and Methods of Operating the Same.” The patent was issued in 2005. Claim 1 of the patent deals with a system within a communications device that results in making the device able to determine the cause of increased or decreased body activity, like abnormal movements or even falls.

When the District Court overturned the August 2017 ruling, they said that “erely storing, transmitting, receiving, and writing data to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not transform the nature of the claim into a patent eligible application.”

iLife Technologies appealed the January 2020 decision. In its opening brief in May 2020, iLife argued that the patent’s technology improves motion sensors and is not abstract. The company claims its patent uses a novel method of differentiating between “accelerative events,” like lying down and falling down, to assess movement better and concretely improve how the motion sensors work. iLife cited prior cases upheld as patent-eligible under Alice v. CLS Bank, such as Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States (2017), which also dealt with improved motion trackers.

Nintendo’s argument is that iLife Technologies Inc.’s patent is overly broad. Nintendo insists that its Wii products use different technology.

In December 2020 the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was to hear oral arguments in this case. iLife Technologies filed an unopposed motion on December 28, 2020, to reschedule the oral arguments planned for December 29, based upon the fact that Michael Wilson, iLife’s lead attorney, tested positive for COVID-19 a few days prior. iLife said Wilson’s symptoms would prevent his adequate preparation for oral arguments.

On December 29, the Federal Court responded with a per curium decision that oral arguments would not be rescheduled. The appeal is to be submitted on the briefs.