The court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment that plaintiff's patent claiming a method for implementing an instruction in Java was invalid for claiming unpatentable abstract ideas. "[Defendant] argues that the [patent-in-suit] 'cover[s] the abstract steps of obtaining a piece of data, using said data to determine a next step to be taken, and then potentially modifying said piece of data.'. . . The claims here are clearly more specific than [defendant's] generalized description: the claims specify that the data obtained must include data from a resolution data field, that the next step to be taken is a resolving step, and that the modification is to indicate that a reference is resolved. . . . [T]he [asserted] Patent distinguishes the invention from prior art that required rewriting the bytecode; instead, the claims recite modifying the data in the data structure or constant pool entry, including the data in the resolution data field. The claims also recite specific implementation details, such as using data from the resolution data field as an index to a jump table. Thus, it appears that the claims are directed to a specific application and implementation of general principles, rather than broadly pre-empting the use of an abstract idea. . . . Here, the claims of the [asserted] Patent do more than recite an abstract idea and say 'apply it.' Rather, they recite specific steps that confine the claims to a specific, useful application."
Nazomi Communications Inc v. Samsung Telecommunications Inc et al, 5-10-cv-05545 (CAND March 21, 2012, Order) (Whyte, J.)