Mobile Acuity Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd., 110 F.4th 1280

Mobile Acuity sued Blippar in the Central District of California, alleging infringement of two patents related to storing and accessing information using captured images.
The asserted patents described methods for associating information with images and retrieving that information by submitting similar images to a server.
Blippar moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming abstract ideas.
The district court agreed, finding the patents were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter, and dismissed the suit with prejudice.
Mobile Acuity’s request to further amend its complaint was denied as futile, and Mobile Acuity appealed to the Federal Circuit.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s reasoning and decision, holding that the claims failed both steps of the Alice test (abstract idea, no inventive concept).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 101 invalidity is an affirmative defense	§ 101 is an affirmative defense; burden not on plaintiff	Does not affect ability to dismiss if defense appears clear	§ 101 is an affirmative defense; but dismissal proper if clear
Whether claims 9 were fairly representative	Claims 9 not representative; other claims add features	Claims are substantially similar and linked to same concept	Claims 9 (and 5 others) are representative; any differences immaterial
Whether asserted claims are patent-eligible under § 101	Claims provide technical improvement, not abstract idea	Claims are abstract, lack inventive concept	Claims are abstract (collect/store/info with images), no inventive concept
Denial of leave to amend as futile	Further amendments would show concrete features	Amendment would not cure patent eligibility defect	Denial affirmed; amendments would be futile

Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (establishing two-step test for patent eligibility under § 101)
Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (patent eligibility is a legal issue but may involve facts; representative claim analysis)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (standard for motion to dismiss - plausibility)
Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343 (analyzing group of claims under § 101 when they are substantively similar)
Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (claims reciting information collection, analysis, display are abstract)
Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359 (improved user experience is not enough for patent eligibility)
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138 (focus for § 101 inquiry is on the claims themselves)