Weisner v. Google LLC, 551 F.Supp.3d 334

Plaintiffs Sholem Weisner and Shmuel Nemanov are co-inventors/co-owners of four patents (U.S. Pat. Nos. 10,380,202; 10,394,905; 10,642,910; 10,642,911) claiming systems/methods for creating and using digital location histories and using those histories/URLs to influence search results or recommendations.
The patents describe collecting physical-encounter/location data (via GPS/URLs), creating visual timelines and accounts for stationary vendors and mobile users, and boosting vendor rankings based on location-history relationships.
Plaintiffs alleged Google Maps features ("Your Timeline," "Your Places," "Your Photos") infringe and sent cease-and-desist letters before filing suit; an earlier amended complaint was dismissed for insufficient detail but Plaintiffs were given leave to amend.
Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC); Google moved to dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (patent ineligibility) and Rule 12(b)(6).
The court applied the Alice two-step framework, concluded the claims are directed to the abstract idea of collecting/recording/location-history data and that the claims lack any inventive concept because they rely on conventional technology and generic computer implementation.
The court granted Google's motion to dismiss, denied further leave to amend as futile, and terminated the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101 (Alice)	Patents solve practical obstacles: automate encounter logging, avoid manual recording, enable dynamic web-searchable records, assign accounts to locations/users, categorize visits (frequency/time decay) — a technological improvement	Claims are an abstract idea (data collection, organization, display) implemented with conventional tech (GPS, URLs, databases); no inventive algorithm or unconventional arrangement	The claims are directed to an abstract idea and lack an inventive concept; invalid under §101
Failure to state a claim (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6))	SAC alleges specific Google Maps features that implement claimed functions	Dismissal warranted given patent invalidity and prior pleading deficiencies	Court did not reach 12(b)(6) merits because patents were invalid under §101
Leave to amend	Plaintiffs sought further amendment after prior dismissal	Defendant opposed as futile given substantive deficiencies and §101 problems	Leave to amend denied as futile; repeated failures to cure deficiencies

Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) (establishes two-step test for §101: directed-to-idea then inventive concept)
Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., 566 U.S. 66 (2012) (§101 framework and limits on patenting natural laws/abstract ideas)
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims may be patent-eligible where directed to specific improvement in computer functionality)
In re TLI Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims using conventional technology for organizing/storing digital images held abstract)
Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (inventive-concept inquiry may involve underlying factual disputes)
Bascom Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (inventive concept can reside in a non-conventional, non-generic arrangement)
Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (factual questions can preclude dismissal when claim elements might be inventive in combination)
Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (data extraction and collection claims treated as abstract)
Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom SA, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims directed to gathering/analyzing information and displaying results are abstract)
Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims directed to broad menu-generation functionality were held abstract)