Skip to content

Court rejects TJTM's patent lawsuit against Google over Android notifications

A legal battle over Android's do-not-disturb feature ends in Google's favor. Why the court called the patent an 'abstract idea'—and what it means for tech innovation.

The image shows a patent drawing of a device with a camera attached to it. The drawing is on a...
The image shows a patent drawing of a device with a camera attached to it. The drawing is on a piece of paper with some text written on it.

Court rejects TJTM's patent lawsuit against Google over Android notifications

A US appeals court has upheld the dismissal of a patent infringement case brought by TJTM Technologies against Google. The ruling confirms that the disputed patent covers an abstract idea rather than a valid technological invention. The decision follows a lower court’s earlier finding that the claims lacked patent eligibility.

TJTM Technologies filed the lawsuit in the Northern District of California, alleging that Google’s Android phones infringed its US Patent No. 8,958,853. The patent describes a system where a mobile device suppresses notifications in an 'inactive mode' and sends an automated away message. One key scenario involves the phone entering this mode automatically when paired with a vehicle, acting as a hands-free and do-not-disturb feature.

The district court ruled that the patent’s main claim was directed to the abstract concept of 'screening notifications,' applying the two-step test from *Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International*. TJTM argued that the invention solved a technical problem with a technical solution, but the court found the claim limitations followed a conventional sequence. During oral arguments, TJTM even admitted that vehicle-to-phone pairing was not an inventive part of the patent. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) agreed with the lower court’s analysis. It rejected TJTM’s comparison to cases like *Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.*, where patents were deemed eligible for addressing specific technical challenges. The CAFC concluded that the claims lacked an inventive concept and remained focused on an ineligible abstract idea.

The CAFC’s decision affirms that TJTM’s patent does not qualify for protection under US patent law. The ruling means Google will face no further legal action over the disputed Android features. The case reinforces the limits on patenting abstract ideas without a truly novel technical implementation.

Read also:

Latest