*1 conclusion,” we affirm support quate noninfringement deter
the Commission’s . NLRB, v. Edison Co.
mination. Consol 197, 229, 83 L.Ed.
305 U.S. (1938). the Commis Because we affirm respect no with finding of violation
sion’s Arista’s patent, we do not reach ground” for affirmance
“alternative should have reversed the Commission assignor estop-
ALJ’s determination challenging
pel Arista from barred § 101.
patent under 35 U.S.C.
Conclusion the remainder have considered
We find arguments do not parties’ The Commission’s deter- persuasive.
them
mination is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
Costs
No costs. INNOVATIONS,
SMART SYSTEMS
LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant AUTHORITY, Cu TRANSIT
CHICAGO Transportation Corporation,
bic Cubic
Systems, Inc., Transportation Cubic Inc., Defendants-Ap
Systems Chicago,
pellees
2016-1233 Appeals,
United States Court
Federal Circuit.
Decided: October *2 Kapouytian J. Mauriel Pernick,
Marc LLP, Francisco, CA, argued San Woods *3 by represented plaintiff-appellant. Also for NY; York, Kahn, New William Sherman LLP, & N. Fisher Jacob Calvo Hebert, Francisco, CA. San Kristopher Reed, Kilpatrick L. Town- LLP, CO, Denver, argued & Stockton send represented Also defendants-appellees. Jeffrey E. M. Connor: by David Sipiora, REYNA, LINN, and Before WALLACH, Judges. Circuit part Opinion dissenting Judge concurring part filed Circuit ^ Linn. WALLACH, Judge. Circuit Innovations, Systems Appellant Smart (“SSI”) Appellees Chicago LLC sued Authority al. (collectively, “Ap- et' Transit for. pellees”) U.S. District Court (“District of Illinois Northern District U.S, Court”),' alleging infringement Pat- (“the 7,566,003 ’003 patent”), Nos. ent (“the 8,505,816 7,568,617 patent”), (“the (“the 8,662,390 patent”), and patent”) (collectively, “the Pafents-in- Suit”).1 by filing a responded Appellees pleadings, on the as- judgment motion serting claims of the Patents- that various (“the Claims”)2 pat- Asserted in-Suit are § 101 ineligible ent 35 U.S.C. under (2012).3 granted Appel- District Court 21, 24-26, 28, patent; and 31-34 of the '816 1. below involved another U.S'. The suit 1, 4-5, 7-10, 13-19, 22, 25, 27-28, 5,828,044, here. that is not at issue claims Patent No. patent. J.A. n.5. and 31 the '390 1-4, 6- Claims include claims 2. The Asserted 44-47, 14-18, 29-30, 37-40, 7, 9, 22-26, § 3.Congress amend did not when.it 49, 51, 58-59, passed Leahy-Smith Invents patent; ’0Ó3 America Act. 68 of the n 112-29, 10, 13-15, 21-22, 28-29, 6,1, 125 Stat. generally 32- See L. No. Pub. 1-2, 4-6, 8-13, (2011). patent; of the ’617 Motion, holding that lees’ Asserted we review de novo. See Intellectual Ven Co., are Claims tures I LLC v. Erie Indem. F.3d 1315, 1326(Fed. 2017) . concept,
otherwise lack an inventive such they ineligible § under Innovations, Sys. Smart LLC v. Chi II. The Claims of Asserted the Patents- Auth., 1:14-cv-08053, Transit No. 2015 WL Are Patent-Ineligible in-Suit Under (N.D. 10, 2015). July Ill. *7 § 35 U.S.C. judgment District Court later final entered “Whoever invents or any discovers new pursuant' as to the Asserted Claims machine, process, useful manufacture, 54(b).4 Rule of Civil Procedure Federal matter, or composition of new and J.A. 1-2. improvement thereof, useful may obtain a *4 appeals. jurisdiction SSI pursu- We have therefor, patent subject to the conditions 1295(a)(1) (2012). § ant to 28 U.S.C. We requirements of’ Title 35 of the Unit- affirm. § 35 ed States Code. U.S.C. 101. “The Court, however,
Supreme long has inter- § preted 101 its statutory predeces- Discussion sors implicit exception: contain an .-to laws nature, phenomena, natural I. of Review ab- Standards patentable.” stract are not ideas Content judg review a district court’s We & Extraction Transmission LLC v. Wells on pleadings ment under the law the Bank, Ass’n, Fargo 1343, Nat’l 776 F.3d circuit, regional here the Seventh Circuit. (Fed. 2014) (internal 1346 Cir. quotation Co., RecogniCorp, See LLC v. Nintendo omitted). marks and citation 1322, 1325-26 (Fed. 2017). 855 F.3d Cir. The Seventh Circuit reviews de novo1the Supreme Court’s decision entry judgment on pleadings. See Pty v. Corp. Ltd. CLS Bank Interna Univ., Barr v. Bd. Trs. Ill.W. 796 provides tional through framework 837, (7th 2015). doing, F.3d Cir. In so patent which we eligibility assess' under the Seventh Circuit facts al “tak[es] the — U.S. —, § 2347, 101. See 134 S.Ct. leged complaint in the true and draw[s] 2354-55, (2014). A 189 L.Ed.2d all reasonable favor of inferences (1)’ § it claim falls outside 101 where is' IV, plaintiff.” Matrix Inc. Am. Nat’l patent-ineligible concept, “directed to” 539, (7th Co., Bank & Tr. 649 F.3d Cir. i.e., nature, phenome- a law of natural 2011) (citation omitted). non, idea, (2)[ so, and' if] claim, particular elements consid- “unique pat We review issues individually “both and ‘as an or- ered law,” including patent eligibility ent under ” combination,’ enough not add dered § 35 U.S.C. consistent with our cir “ nature to ‘transform the claim’ precedent. Univ., Madey cuit’s. v. Duke application.” patent-eligible into a 2002). A S.A., district court’s determination of Grp., eli Elec. Power LLC v. Alstom gibility § under 101 is an (quoting issue law that 54(b) all, more, 4. Rule "[w]hen states that an action one or but fewer than as to presents only expressly one claim for more than relief if determines ... the court .... may entry judgment delay.” just of a final court there is direct no reason system and patents generally this relate to “a against It is entry in a transit regulating method for analyze the that we Asserted framework bankcard, system using from a information Claims.5 as a or debit card.” ’003 such credit card Asserted Claims A. The Abstract; patent, patent, see ’617 Abstract (similar). System “Public Transit Entitled “tackle” The Patents-in-Suit various For-Multi-Balance Fare Processor Fund- proven intractable to “problems that had generally ing,” the ’816 and ’390 Appellant’s Br. transit sector.” [mass] system pro- to “a and method relate patents); ’003 and (discussing the cessing transfer rides associated with (discussing similarly see id. at network,” public transit which least sought to overcome patents). SSI “preprocess consolidate transactions designed inventions problems with these unnecessary eliminate transactions with open-payment systems fare implement clearing and settle- financial institution mass networks the United Abstract; patent, ment network.” ’816 SSI, at *1. WL States. (same).6 Abstract fare allows rid- open-payment “An conveniently quickly Court, ers District we Consistent with the bankcards,” by using existing following mass transit treat claims from each *5 cards, thereby such as debit and credit representative of their Patents-in-Suit for, op- *4; “eliminat[ing] SSI, the need and .added content.7 WL of, fare-cards,” pa- Power, erational cost dedicated Elec. 1352. tickets, Id.; see, per e.g., and tokens. patent 14 of the ’003 Claim recites: patent, Abstract. validating entry A into a method system using transit a bankcard “Learning Sys- Entitled Fare Collection first terminal, Transit,” comprising: For the method tem Mass the ’003 and ’617 "engag[e] 1 in each The dissent states that we in a that we instead should look to claim 5. "ignor[es] patent dependent Appel reductionist exercise” that the limi- and certain claims. However, question.” tations of the claims in Dissent at Br. SSI does not iden lant’s 34-36. by apply 1376. We the test the tify meaningful established a difference between the Court, Supreme Court as articulated in Alice because analyzed by the District which otherwise, permitted claims, we even if pat are method 1 in the claim agree ents, claims, we were to with some of the frustra- system which are and the con expressed by existing Indeed, the tions dissent as dependent the tested claims. id. See, § precedent. e.g., Dissent at 1376-79. District Court observed "all of the con may disagree That we wheth- with the dissent cepts patents described” in 1 of the claim patent-eligible er Asserted Claims are the does (indeed detail) included in fuller in the” "are ignored not mean we have the content SSI, representative, it treated as 4184486, n those claims. supported WL a conclusion text, compare patents’ patent the col. (claim 1), belong pat- patent 6. The Patents-in-Suit to the same 1. 14 '617 58-col. 15 (claim 1), family. patent ent The ’390 is a continuation patent col. 11 11.7-29 with '003 col. (claim 14), application patent, of the that led to '816 '617 15 1. 50-col. 16 1. 6 (claim 13). applica- in turn is a which continuation patent col. 111. 62-col. 1. 18 tion led to the '003 and the '003 [relevant] claim[s] "Because patent continuation-in-part applica- is a of the in the and '617 claim[s]” method '003 patent. tion that led to the '617 only "contain minor differences in terminolo gy require performance of the same basic but process, they together.” ... rise or fall 7. SSI contests the District Court's decision to should Servs., Glob. GmbH v. Guidewire treat claim 14 of the '003 and claim 13 Accenture Inc., alleging Software, representative, of the downloading, processing sys- from a downloading, from processing sys- a tem associated with set tem transit associated with a set of transit systems first including sys- systems transit including sys- first tem, tem, a set of records com- bankcard a list comprising, bankcards prising, for each bankcard record list, for each bankcard a hash set, an of a identifier bankcard identifier of a bankcard previously previously registered pro- with the presented, by a respective holder of cessing system, and wherein set of bankcard, processing to the sys- bankcard records identifies bankcards tem, wherein comprises the bankcard issuers; a plurality from one of a card; credit card and a debit reader, receiving, from a bankcard from receiving, reader, a bankcard comprising data from bankcard data bankcard data comprising from data currently presented by bankcard currently bankcard presented by a bankcard, of the wherein holder bankcard; holder of a comprises bankcard credit generating a hash identifier on based card; determining card and debit the bankcard currently data from the on at part identifier based least bankcard, presented wherein the hash currently pre- bankcard data comprises identifier a hash of at least bankcard; sented part data; of the bankcard determining the currently whether determining currently whether presented bankcard contained presented bankcard is contained records; the set bankcards; the list of currently verifying presented bankcard with a bankcard verification verifying the currently presented system, if the bankcard was con- bankcard with bankcard verification *6 records; in the tained set bankcard system, if the bankcard was not con- bankcards; in tained the list of access, if denying the act of verifying access, denying verifying if the act of currently presented the bankcard with currently presented the bankcard with system the bankcard verification re- the bankcard verification re- sults in a determination of an invalid in sults a determination of an invalid bankcard. bankcard. patent col. 151. 50-col. 161. 6. patent col. 62-col. 12 1.18. patent Claim 13 of the ’617 recites: 1 of patent Claim recites: A for validating entry method into a system using first transit a A of funding bankcard method transit associ- rides terminal, method comprising: the with at public ated least one transit net- 2013) (internal marks, brackets, quotation eligibility of claims 18 and 19 in the '390 omitted). event, analy and citation In our require Ap- which a "token reader.” sis covers claim 1 of each and the pellant’s (discussing Br. col. disputed dependent purposes claims for (claims 18—19)). SSI, however, 11. 46-54 completeness. challenge SSI does not the Dis equates the recited reader” to "token a trict Court’s decision to treat claim 1 of each reader,” id., "bankcard which the District representative. of the '816 and ’390 SSI, analysis, Court considered its pur- SSI also contests the District Court’s *4, WL *6. ported independently failure to consider as an using method of a funding A bank card
work, plurality a mass identifying token time-based sources, comprising: method products, using fare without transit processor, associated configuring a card, on bank memory writeable public transit at least one with the comprising: method configuring network, pro- wherein comprises: timepass processing record associat- cessor public' transit ed with at least memory, plurality storing, in network, timepass record wherein classes; balance comprises an indication of duration memory, at least one storing, ac- to a first transit identifier of the bal- prioritization rule for count, processing the ti- and wherein classes; ance mepass comprises: record memory, at least one storing, timepass rep- receiving, record rule; and fare of a resenting purchase an advance product; and fare a tran- memory, in the maintaining, respective plurali- account and sit indicating the first transit account balances; ty of timepass by the record identified timepass product; enabled presentation processing a bankcard record, presen- the bankcard wherein record, processing presentation a first comprises an identifier tation record presentation record wherein first account, wherein to the transit comprises timestamp and an identi- presentation the bankcard processing account, fier the first transit comprises: record presen- of the first wherein processing comprises: record tation presentation
receiving bankcard processor; record receiving presentation the first rec- ord; memory for the tran- searching the by the identifi- sit account identified first' determining presentation rec- er account identified the identifier ord; presentation in the first record inferring, from at least one the at for a timepass product; enabled *7 rules, fare least one a resultant with providing a discount associated fare; timepass product; the and selecting plurali- a from the balance processing presentation a rec- second ty of for the transit ac- balances ord, presentation the wherein second by using count at least of the at comprises timestamp a record and prioritization least for the one rule account, identifier a transit second classes; and balance processing of wherein the second and accounting by for a applying fare comprises: presentation record the the fare to selected balance. receiving presentation the second rec- Í1-38, patent ord; col. 2511. and patent determining re- second transit Finally, claim 1 of the ’390 the by account identified identifier cites: that, presentation the second record is not Court although further found timepass product; enabled for and Patents-in-Suit disclose inventions applying non-timepass fare rule. allow riders quickly would more access, network, efficiently a mass transit patent col. 241. 41-col. 251. 5. “the recent case law has reiterated that added, may whatever bells and whistles be B. The Asserted Claims Are Directed core, when reduced their claims directed to an Abstract Idea performance to the of certain financial one, paying transactions—and a fare is a Under Alice “claims finan- categorized cial transaction—must be entirety are their considered ascer (internal involving quo- tain whether their ideas.” Id. character as whole abstract omitted). marks subject tation citations excluded In matter.” Network, Corp. ternet Patents v. Active that, appeal, argues On SSI because Inc., 2015); F.3d patents the ’003 and ’617 disclose inven- McRO, see Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games “operate tangible tions that in the world” Inc., Am. public satisfy con- demand more 2016) (stating that for method claims “a venient travel that did not exist in the court must look to claims an or art, prior patents’ claims are di- combination, ignoring dered without to an Appellant’s rected abstract idea. Br. requirements of steps”). the individual 38; Moreover, alleges id. at 38-40. SSI ... “We look to whether the ... patents similarly that the ’390 and ’816 specific focus on a means method concern an abstract idea because their improves technology the relevant dr are “overcome challenges created to a instead directed result effect that storage limitations that exist with con- merely itself is the abstract in idea and 42; tangible ventional bankcards.” Id. generic processes machinery.” voke see id. at 40-42. McRO, 837 arguments unavailing. that, SSI’s “[stripped The District Court held The Asserted Claims ’003 and ’617 jargon broadly the technical de- patents involve acquiring identification (e.g., scribes non-inventive elements bankcard, systems’), using ‘interfaces’ ‘processing data data bankcard, validity further typically syn- verify shorn obtuse of patents, really only denying tax to a if the here concept: cover an paying bankcard is invalid. See ’003 col. subway (claim or bus with ride a credit card.” 1. 15 1.14 1), 58-col. col. 15 1.50-col. SSI, (claim 14); 2015 WL *4.8The 161. 6 District col. 1111.7-29 impermis- 8. SSI avers that guage the District Court of the claims all ensures that but *8 sibly "chopp[ed] the rule.”), [Asserted down Claims] exceptions § 101 The swallow to unrecognizable gist” by to categorizing an here, instructed, District Court have we n them as directed to transactions. financial language looked to the dis- to of 47; Appellant’s Br. see id. at 47-48. This court SSI, cern the character of against abstracting has warned the claims at if 2015 WL *1-2. Even had it high Enfish, level. See too a LLC v. Microsoft claims, oversimplified though, find the we (Fed. Corp., 822 F.3d Cir. legal de conclusion reached under our correct ' ("[Describing high the claims at such a level novo standard of review. of and from the lan- abstraction untethered is (claim turnstile up process at the speeding 1), 12 1. 18 (claim 11 1. 62-col. col. “that claims unavailing. have found pat- We 13). of the ’816 Asserted Claims of functioning improve to purporting data acquiring identification involve ent itself, or an exist- computer improving ride funding a transit from a bankcard might not suc- technological process[,] ing multiple balances associated of from En- exception.” to the abstract idea col. 25 cumb See ’816 that bankcard. with (internal quotation (claim 1). Moreover, fish, at 1335 the Asserted 11.11-38 omitted). brackets, marks, and citation identify- patent involve of Claims in is “whether the question such cases asso- presented a ing whether specific on the assert- monthly focus of the claims is timepass (e.g., a a ciated with found, computer capabilities” card) and, improvement in if ed subway timepass merely “computers are invoked See ’390 whether charging a different fare. in (claim 1). example, For tool.” Id. at 1335-36. 25 1. 5 Taken as a 1. 41-col. col. 24 Hotels.com, L.P., Holdings, LLC v. DDR Claims are directed together, the Asserted in “necessarily rooted in that claims we held of financial transactions to the formation transit) (i.e., technology in order to overcome computer mass field particular in arising the realm problem specifically to collection related such transactions. data merely re- networks” did not computer to a not directed The Asserted Claims are bankcard, turnstile, cite an abstract idea. 773 F.3d data- type new recently, in we held base, More provide nor the claims method specific to a existing that claims “directed improves processing data Enfish Rather, way computers oper- technological processes. improvement the claims table,” ate, collection, self-referential storage, [a] embodied are directed fall the realm abstract not within of data. We have determined did recognition however, SSI, collection, at 1336. does to the stor- ideas. 822 F.3d that claims directed to an argue its claims are directed are directed to age, recognition data technology. Con- Power, computer improvement F.3d idea. See Elec. sequently, treated our decisions (stating that we “have at 1353 Enfish Holdings inapposite. DDR are ... collecting information within ideas”); Extrac- Content realm abstract McRO, Similarly, we held that tion, (surveying previous F.3d at 1347 us[ing] a combined order process “claimed found directed opinions that “claims existing upon specific improved rules” manipulation eco- mere formation it did processes, such that technological “financial trans- through nomic relations” not recite an abstract idea. 837 F.3d abstract); actions” Intellectual Ven- accord Here, are the Asserted Claims 1315-16. Corp., Fin. Capital tures I One LLC improve specific rules that not directed 2017) (discuss- the claims technological process. Again, to or- ing precedent abstract idea related data the collection financial recite manipulating ganizing, displaying, and storing that financial parties, the third data). Claims Accordingly, the Asserted data, linking proffered cards credit to an abstract idea under are directed data, allowing to a financial one. on the financial data. based combined The claims are the Asserted argument SSI’s improve they specific order of rules patent eligible because Claims but invoke technological process, rather systems of fare collection improve prior *9 (Fed. computers arrange- Graphics in the collection and Corp., 839 F.3d that, Cir. (explaining although some ment data. Claims with such character occurs, overlap analysis § under escape exception not the abstract differs from that patent- under the other step RecogniCorp, Alice one. See under statutes). validity 1327. respect to
With the ’003 and ’617 repeatedly emphasizes that we patents, the dissent pat SSI states that those ents any nevertheless should not find the Asserted are directed not to financial transaction, but to “the identification of a Claims directed idea be bank card as for authorized use in access they apply particular, to a cause concrete ing system.” a transit Dissent at 1380. field—namely, Appel mass transit. See That ignores characterization what is actu (“Anyone lant’s Br. 38 has who ever ally recited the asserted claims of passed through entry gate a terminal or See, patents. e.g., subway—or their local who has patent col. 14 1. 15 2 (describing 66-col. 1. hip slammed a into a turnstile— locked bankcard, product use of a generally that knows such terminals are the antithe transactions, used conduct financial ”); But, sis of see ‘abstract.’ id. 43-44. provides “data” to a “bankcard read before, “merely limiting we have said er”); (similar). col. 11.14-17 of use of partic field the abstract idea to a from Supreme Our mandate Court un ... ular environment does not render the Alice step der one is ascertain what Affinity less abstract.” Labs of to,” “thrust,” claims are “directed Tex., DIRECTV, LLC, LLC v. 838 F.3d “heart,” invention, or “focus” of the as the 2016); Capital One argues. 1379,1380,1381, dissent Dissent at Fin., (same). Indeed, F.3d at Here, 1381. regardless of whether steps in the Claims recited Asserted transaction, claims teach a financial when “necessarily” performed physi “in the considered, it properly that the evident cal, purely conceptual, rather than realm collection, claims are analy sis, information, ... point.” is beside the and classification (stat (internal not access alone. See Dissent at 1381 quotation citation marks and ing ipse omitted). “[t]he dixit claims 'call practical more in making much use of data ' SSI also contends that the District gain from a conventional bank card that, Court failed to appreciate because system”); access to a transit see id. at the Patents-in-Suit disclose inventions (discussing 1381-83 of data collection claiming “speedier solutions,” the Asserted through compo the combination various Claims do not fall within the abstract ideas invention). nents of the claimed Appellant’s argument realm. Br. SSI’s step The dissent also conflates its Alice misplaced here because we consider the analysis step with Alice two’s inventive application an abstract idea Alice under concept analysis, ignoring Supreme two, See, step one. step e.g., Court directive the Alice .test is a two- Symantec Intellectual I Ventures LLC v. step inquiry. Dissent at 1382-83. 1307, 1315 Corp., 838 F.3d C. The Asserted Claims Do Not reliance on court SSI’s decisions this Concept Recite an Inventive obviousness, concerning Appellant’s 51-52, Br. change does not our § conclusion anal The second point, ysis on this Synopsys, requires Inc. v. Mentor us determine whether cf. *10 1374 Claims individually avers that the Asserted elements, further viewed .when
claim combination, way an contain an to. make unconventional ordered “reflect and an 59, better,” id. at process trans- and concept sufficient electronic inventive “an into a pat- specific form the claimed abstract Claims “address that Asserted Alice, uniquely ent-eligible application.” technology challenges arose that concept sector,” an inventive contains support 2357. A claim in id. at 61. In the transit features” if it additional that “indudets] v. position, cites Diamond its SSI “well-understood, routine, than 175, 1048, are more Diehr, 450 S.Ct. 67 U.S. 101 2359 activities.” Id. conventional (1981), Holdings, DDR 155 and L.Ed.2d brackets, marks, (internal quotation and at 53-54. F.3d 1245.See id. 773 omitted). citations fail to Asserted Claims pro that Court held
The District
concept.
patent
The ’003
inventive
vide an
concept
inventive
Claims
an
Asserted
lack
“processor,”
an
“inter
teaches the use
general computer and
they recite
because
“data,”
face,”-
including
“memory,” and
‘processor,’
“like
technological components
patent col. 14 1.
“hash
’003‘
identifier^].”9
token,’
identifier,’ ‘identifying
‘hash
(claim 1),
col. 16 11.13-18
58-col.
the technical details
memory,’
‘writeable
16);
(claim
1. 6
col. 15 1. 50-col. 16
.id.
see
n SSI, 2015 WL
not described.”
which'are
(claim
of,
alia,
(discussing the use
inter
result,
As a
the District
at’*6.
“data”).
system”
processing
“a
So too
“[i]nvoking
com
various
held that
Court
col. 11 11.
patent.
patent
’617
does
elements,
save time
puter
which
hardware
(claim 1);
see
col. 111. 62-col.
1.
7-29
id.
function on
carrying
out
validation
(claim 13)
of,
(discussing the use
inter
change
remotely,
not
does
site rather than
alia,
processing system,”
“a
“a hash identi
substance,
are
in
the claims
the fact that
“data”).
fier,”
pat
’816 and ’390
nothing
running
than
more
still directed
“pro
use of a
similarly recite the
ents
is,
performance
a bankcard sale—that
patent
col. 25
“memory.”
cessor”
*5
practice.” Id. at
of an abstract business
(claim 1);
patent col. 24 1.42-
11.12-38
(internal quotation
citation
marks and
(claim
(claim 1);
11.
25 1.5
29-63
col.
col.
omitted).
agree.
We
Asserted Claims
When claims like the
are
to an abstract
“directed
idea”
argues
erred
that
Court
SSI
District
computer imple
“merely requir[e] generic
SSI
analysis
its
under
two.
mentation,” they
not
into sec
]
move
“do[
alleges
“solv[e]
the Asserted Claims
that
territory.” buySAFE,
eligibility
tion 101
in-
technological problems
conventional
Inc.,
Google,
Inc.
dustry
they
practice,”
disclose
such
2014) (internal quotation
(capi-
marks
Appellant’s Br. 53
concept.
inventive
omitted);
modified);
Capital
see
One
It
and citation
see id. at
talization
53-56.
pat-
independent
9.
claims
those
extract-
than” the
A
consists
"hash identifier"
data
operative'test
finger-
Appellant's Br. 35-36. The
"digital
ents.
ed from
to create
require concreteness and nar-
here
print”
does
that a bankcard terminal
card
2355, rather,
rowness,
ques-
processor
identify
uses to
card in
col,
51-58,
A
concept.
must
inventive
12 11.
the claims
have an
col.
tion. ’003
generic
routine
is a
con-
dependent
hash identifier
21-23. SSI contends
certain
cept
claims to
does
transform the
'003 and '390
instruct
eligible
application
.the
hashing,
dependent
the use of
those
such
idea.
narrow[er]
concrete
"more
*11
Fin.,
(describing a “pro
patent-eligible subject
Demonstrate Patent remaining ar- SSI contends that “other indi- We have considered SSI’s prove unpersuasive. cia” Ac- guments that the Asserted Claims cover and find them 303, 308, Chakrabarty, mond v. Judgment of the U.S.
cordingly, the Final
U.S.
(“In
(1980))
66 L.Ed.2d
for the Northern District
District Court
...
terms
modi
choosing
expansive
such
Illinois
‘any,’ Congress
comprehensive
fied
AFFIRMED
plainly
that the
laws
contemplated
given
scope.”).
would be
wide
Within this
*12
LINN,
dissenting
part
in
Judge,
Supreme Court
expansive provision,
Circuit
in
concurring
part.
recognized
important
implicit
“an
ex
has
nature,
ception:
phenome
of
natural
Laws
again
once
concludes
The court
na,
patentable.”
not
and abstract ideas are
exception
“abstract idea”
judicially crafted
—Int’l,
Corp.
v. CLS Bank
U.S.
now renders invalid the
patent eligibility
—,
2347, 2354, 189
296
134 S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d
cover-
patents
of four U.S.
asserted claims
(2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs.
by
created
hu-
ing apparatus and methods
Labs., Inc.,
66,
v.
566 U.S.
132
Prometheus
per-
activity
man
to overcome heretofore
1289, 1293,
(2012));
182
321
S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d
ordinary
in
of
the- use
ceived limitations
Pathology Myriad
v.
Assoc. Molecular
systems.
to access
The
bankcards
Genetics,
576,
Inc., 569
133 S.Ct.
U.S.
the same error as the
majority commits
2107, 2116,
(2013);Bilski,
124
L.Ed.2d
186
in
engaging
court in
a reductionist
district
601-02,
3218;
561
Dia
U.S.
130 S.Ct.
ignoring
of
the limitations of the
exercise
Diehr,
175, 185, 101
mond v.
450 U.S.
S.Ct.
and, at
question
claims in
least with re-
(1981);
1048,
155
Parker v.
67 L.Ed.2d
spect
patents,
failing
to the ’003and ’617
Flook,
584, 589,
2522,
98 S.Ct.
57
437 U.S.
excep-
appreciate
idea
(1978);
Benson,
451
v.
L.Ed.2d
Gottschalk
applied
tion—if it is to be
at all—must be
63,
253,
67,
409
34
U.S.
93 S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d
narrowly,
gene-
its
applied
consistent with
Tatham,
U.S.(14
(1972);
55
Roy
Le
v.
representative
of
sis. Because
How.)
(1853).
156, 174-75,
ed
(Fed.
important
Corp.,
computing,
1150
medical
Graphics
inventions
Internet diagnostics,
intelligence,
In
BASCOM Global
artificial
(quoting
Cir.
LLC,
robotics,
rvs.,
Mobility
v.
Inc.
AT&T
Things,
among
oth
Se
ternet
2016)),
things.
F.3d
er
in the
of the
mind
“prominent
First,
apparent.
A
be
things
few
should
Pencil,
Rubber-Tip
U.S. at
inventor,”
it is
to look at
always important
the actual
results
re-character
often
This
statute,
language
By
claims.
such
high
to “a
of abstrac
level
ization of claims
language “particularly point[s]
and dis-
out
Corp.,
tion.” Enfish, LLC Microsoft
subject
tinctly
the.
claim[s]
matter which
Re-char
regards
invention.”
[ ]
inventor
way
ain
“unteth
acterizing claims
112;
§
U.S.C.
S.Ct. at
language of the
all
ered
(“[Fjirst
determine
whether
§
exceptions
-the
but ensures
patent-
claims at issue are
But if
not to
Id.
rule.”
we
swallow
added));
ineligible concept.” (emphasis
claims,
what are we
re-characterize
(“The
§ 100(j)
term
U.S.C.
‘claimed inven-
ignore
we not
to do? Are
supposed
subject
tion’
means the
matter defined
so,
ignore
If
we
some?'
May
limitations?
application
.patent
a claim in a
for a
limitations matter and
Which
which ones?
patent.”). I
to. imply
do not mean
that a
exactly is the task at
What
which do not?
*14
formal
is required
claim construction
in
step one?
hand under
every
What
claim is
Section 101 case.
be a hunt for the ab
one cannot
Step
apparent
directed to is often
in-
without an
claim,
underlying the
because
stract idea
See,
Ultramercial,
depth analysis.
e.g.,
Inc.
virtually every
ab
claim is an
underlying
Hulu,
709,
LLC,
(Fed.
v.
772 F.3d
719
Cir.
if the task
step
And
stract
under
idea..
2014) (“No
claim
formal
construction was
is to
claim
whether
is directed
assess
.the
required
the
because
asserted claims dis-
idea,
no
is
to
an abstract
what
more than
gar-
closed no more than
abstract idea
under
two?
left for determination
nished with
and there was no
accessories
prop
line
you
the
Where
draw
between
bring
reasonable construction that would
determining
erly
what the claim is directed
subject
patentable
[them] within
matter”
to
engaging
overly
in an
improperly
(internal
omitted,
in
quotations
alteration
to
reductionist exercise
find the abstract
original)). But
claim
individual
limitations
virtually every
idea that underlies
claim?
ignored. By
cannot
virtue
inclu-
be
their
Litig. Mgmt.
See Rapid
Ltd. v. CellzDi
claims, every-
sion in the
limitation war-
rect, Inc.,
1042,
(Fed.
F.3d
1050
827
Cir.
to
rants
the role it
some consideration
2016) (“At step
therefore,
one,
it is not
plays
reciting the invention.
merely
enough
identify patent-ineligi
to
Second,
considering
the
played
roles
claim;
concept underlying the
ble
must
we
limitations,
by
it is
to
important
individual
that patent-ineligible
determine whether
light
“in
specifica-
read
the
concept
is
the claim is ‘directed
what
1335;
to.’”).
tion.”
TLI
Enfish,
F.3d
In re
822
Despite
cases that
number-of
607,
Litig.
Commc’ns LLC
823
questions
Patent
-attempted
have
these
faced
(Fed.
2016);
(Israel)
provide
611-13
Cir.
AmDocs
practical guidance,
to
great uncer
Telecom, Inc.,
tainty
yet
danger-
Openet
And
of Ltd.
841 F.3d
remains.
these,
1288,
to
getting
questions
specifica-
the answers
The
cases,
is,
directly
most
source for
depositing
tion
best
the required
using
“[i]n
fare
discerning
proper
context
claim cash,
or
tokens
some form of proprietary
Labs.,
terms.” Metabolite
Inc. v. Lab.
systems generally
fare card. Such
do not
1354,
Holdings,
Corp.
Am.
370 F.3d
use conventional bankcards. Conventional
2004),
granted,
cert.
546 bankcard transactions
a card
use
reader
975,
543,
U.S.
S.Ct.
1048,
Mayo,
district
A.
Patents
The
and ’617
actually
ignoring
what the
erred
as
majority
The
makes
same error
commits the
majority
here
recited.
all of
treating
court in
district
same error.
together
con-
representative
for-
cluding
they
are directed
“the
Appeal
III.
The Patents
on
par-
in a
mation
financial transactions
(i.e.,
and data
ticular field
mass transit)
Sys-
patents
The four
asserted
Smart
transactions,”
collection related
such
can be
into two
appeal
in this
divided
tems
collection,
Maj.
or to “the
Op.
group
groups. The first
includes
information,”
analysis,
and classification
which, as
and the ’617
concluding
id. at
those are
them,
categorizes
“claim
Systems
Smart
abstract ideas.
using
methods for
a bank
systems and
physical gate
at a
or terminal
directly
card
majority’s
determina-
abstractness
system.” Appel-
to enter a mass
wholly
generality
tion turns
on the
level
patents
Br. at
Opening
lant’s
19. These
which it
the focus1
with
describes
a bankcard reader
disclose
use
of ab-
high
claims and
at such
level
processor
or bankcard and a
scan credit
straction
to overlook and misstate what
as
against a
compare
scanned data
the inventors
to be their inven-
considered
locally-stored
approved
list” of
“white
Categorizing
particular
tion.
mecha-
If the
is listed
transit accounts.
card owner
nism of
claimed in
action
inventions
account-holder,
granted
as an
access is
formation
patents
the ’003and
as “the
immediately having to
without
establish
particular
in a
financial transactions
connectivity
process
network
collection, analysis,
clas-
field”
“the
account,
charge
which can be
at a
done
information,”
sification of
does not correct-
If the
is not
later time.
card owner
listed
ly
patents
reflect
the ’003 and ’617
account-holder,
denied. The
together
contain limitations that
enable the
group
second
includes the ’390
of a
identification
authorized
patent.
system.
These
claim fea-
in accessing
for use
a transit
This
relating
tures
to the use
conventional
is much like the
of a coin or
identification
*16
in a
implement
genuine
to
time-based fare
token as
transit
bankcards
mechanical
tool.”);
"focus,”
objects
merely
Synop
majority
puters
to the terms
are invoked
as a
1. The
claims,
("[W]e
being
sys,
"heart”
as
2. The
critical
dissent's anal-.
without
one.”);
1334;
two,
step
"conflatpng]”
Enfish, 822
Elec.
ysis
steps'one
"ig
F.3d
S.A.,
Grp., LLC
noring
Supreme
Court directive that the
Pwr.
Alstom
(“[T]he
stages
inquiry,” Maj. Op.
two
in
inquiry
two-step
is a
scrutiny of the
step
analysis
overlap-ping
one
volve
content
1373. While some
questions
be close
may overlap
analysis
the claims ...
there can
outlined
with the
above
two,
inquiry
proceed
recog
when
should
step
precedent
about
called for in
our
second.”).
stage to
if
inherently murky
Even
line
the first
'.nizes the
between
Amdocs,
boundary
steps one
two can
steps,
F.3d at 1294
two
between
("Recent
however,
.cases,
proposition
suggest
be
I serious
defined—a
that there
somehow
ly
doubt,
supra
over-arching
1368—the
overlap
step
considerable
between
two,
objective
Alice/Mayo
analysis
of-the
framework is-not
and in some situations this
*18
Instead,
The claims of
’003
and
patent
’617 bit
they
future innovation.
recite
patent are not
to
of
directed
that cannot properly
ignored
cate-
limitations
be
of
gories
Supreme
invention that the
in enabling
Court
conventional bankcards to be
particularly
regulating
and this court have deemed
used
to a
sys-
access
transit
suspect.
The
white list
tem.
application
bankcard
access
Under
reasonable
of
Alice/Mayo
test,
control method here is not a
idea
“fundamental
consis-
genesis
tent with
practice long prevalent
economic
its
judicial
a narrow
our
exception to the
commerce,”
broad statutory categories
of
see
patent eligible subject
of
matter
cogni-
at
organizing
a
of
“method
human
of
zant
the limitations
recited
behavior,
id.;
or
activity”
human
see
BAS-
claims, I
compelled
am
to
COM,
conclude that
a
of
method
calcu-
the asserted claims of the '003 and ’617
number,
Flook,
lating a
see
patentability, they equally deserving majority recognizes, As the the ’816 patent protection. patents generally and ’390 relate to the
Regulating access to mass transit processing performance of data and the comparing identifying data with comparisons data calculations and related list a tangible technological white is solu- funding using rides problems latency tion to the inventions, claimed, real-world bankcard. connectivity. The claims the ’003 processing or link such the means and ’617 do not cover the kind regulating mechanism a tran- building basic block system. Systems argues techno- scientific sit Smart logical activity that would foreclose or inhi- claims are not of, for, separate making of determinations under and understood test what definition steps but the those ultimate determination of encompasses.”). majori an ‘abstract idea1 patent ineligibility under the ru abstract idea ty’s hard line between the two insistence on a Amdocs, (“Whether
bric.
practically foreclosed.
er, for the reasons set forth precedent no
majority opinion, our leaves argument. claims of
room such and the ’390 are generally have charac-
directed what we prac- economic
terized as “fundamental prevalent in our of com- long
tice
merce,” Alice 134 2356. Such categorically rejected
inventions ideas,” regardless
“abstract merit.