Simio, LLC v. Flexsim Software Products
983 F.3d 1353
| Fed. Cir. | 2020Background
- Simio sued FlexSim alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,156,468, which claims a system for building object-oriented simulation models using graphical processes rather than programming.
- Claim 1 (representative) recites creating base objects via graphical processes and an "executable process" that adds a new behavior to a single object instance without changing the object definition.
- FlexSim moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) asserting the asserted claims are patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101; the district court applied Alice and granted dismissal for being directed to an abstract idea and lacking an inventive concept.
- After judgment, Simio moved for reconsideration and sought leave to file an amended complaint; the district court denied both, finding amendment futile and Simio gave no good-cause justification for missing the scheduling-order amendment deadline.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed: claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of substituting graphical modeling for programming in object-oriented simulation and lacks an inventive concept; denial of leave to amend was proper both for futility and for failure to show Rule 16 good cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patent eligibility under §101 (Alice step 1: directed to abstract idea) | Claim improves computer functionality by enabling simulation-building via graphical flowcharts rather than code; focuses on improved computer capabilities | Claims merely implement the long‑standing idea of using graphics instead of programming in an object-oriented simulation environment | Court: Directed to the abstract idea of using graphics in place of programming; improvements to user experience are not improvements to computer functionality |
| Alice step 2: inventive concept (does the "executable-process" provide "significantly more") | The executable-process (add-on behavior for an instance without changing definition) supplies an inventive concept and improves processing speed and efficiency | The executable-process functionality was conventional in programming; doing it via graphics is the same abstract idea and cannot supply the inventive concept | Court: No inventive concept; the asserted novelty is the abstract idea itself or conventional functionality implemented with generic techniques |
| Denial of leave to amend (futility) | PAC alleged additional facts showing the executable process improves computer functioning and efficiency, which would preclude dismissal | New allegations are conclusory or repackaged abstract-idea claims and do not cure §101 defects | Court: Amendment would be futile; new allegations are conclusory and insufficient to avoid Alice dismissal |
| Denial of leave to amend (timeliness / Rule 16 good cause) | Simio reserved right to amend in opposition brief and thus acted diligently | Simio agreed to and missed the scheduling-order deadline and failed to show good cause or diligence for post-deadline amendment | Court: Alternative affirmance — Simio failed to show good cause for post-deadline amendment; drive-by reservation insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) (establishes two-step framework for §101 abstract-idea analysis)
- Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims eligible where directed to specific improvement in computer functionality)
- BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (specific limitations may show inventive concept where they effect concrete improvements)
- Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (pleading-stage guidance on §101 and amendment possibilities)
- In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims directed to using conventional technology in a well-known environment are abstract)
- FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (implementing old practice in a new environment can be an abstract idea)
- Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (limitations that do not change claim character do not avoid abstract-idea finding)
- BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (applying an abstract idea using conventional computer components is insufficient)
- Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (improving user experience alone does not mean improvement in computer functionality)
- Gorsuch, Ltd. v. Wells Fargo Nat'l Bank Ass'n, 771 F.3d 1230 (10th Cir. 2014) (Rule 16 good-cause standard for post-deadline amendments)