Accenture Global Services, GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336 (2013)
`108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173
`
`" KeyCite Yellow Flag — Negative Treatment
`Distinguished by
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.cor11, L.P.,
`(Tex.),
`December 5, 2014
`
`Fed.Cir.
`
`Before RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and REYNA, Circuit
`Judges.
`
`Opinion
`
`728 F.3d 1336
`United States Court of Appeals,
`Federal Circuit.
`
`ACCENTURE GLOBAL SERVICES, GMBH
`
`and Accenture LLP, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
`v.
`
`GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE,
`
`INC., Defendant—Appellee.
`
`No. 2011-1486.
`
`I
`Sept. 5, 2013.
`
`Rehearing En Banc Denied Dec. 12, 2013.
`
`Synopsis
`Background: Patentee brought action against competitor,
`alleging infringement of patent relating to handling task
`during insurance claim processing utilizing a computer
`system. The United States District Court for the District of
`Delaware, Sue L. Robinson, J., 800 F.Supp.2d 613, granted
`co1npetitor‘s motion for summary judgment of invalidity.
`Patentee appealed.
`
`Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge LOURIE.
`
`Dissenting opinion filed by Chief Judge RADER.
`
`LOURIE, Circuit Judge.
`
`Accenture Global Services, GmbH and Accenture, LLP
`(“Accenture”) appeal from the grant of summary judgment
`by the United States District Court for the District of
`Delaware holding that all claims of U.S. Patent 7,013,284
`(the “#284 patent”) are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §
`l0l.
`Accenture Global Servs., GmbH 1/. Guidewire Software,
`Inc., 800 F .Supp.2d 613, 621-22 (D.Del.20ll). Accenture
`appealed that determination only as to claims 1-7, directed to
`a system for generating tasks to be performed in an insurance
`organization, but did not appeal the similar method *l338
`claims 8-22. As described more fully below, we affirm the
`district court's judgment and hold that the system claims
`before us recite patent-ineligible subject matter.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`l. The I284 Patent
`
`[Holding:] The Court of Appeals, Lourie, Circuit Judge, held
`that system claims of patent were ineligible for patenting.
`
`Affirmed.
`
`Rader, Chief Judge, filed a dissenting opinion.
`
`Attorneys and Law Firms
`
`*1337 J. Michael Jakes, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Durmer, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for
`plaintiffs-appellants. With him on the brief were Erika J-l.
`Arner and Justin R. Lowery.
`
`Mark A. Lemley, Durie Tangri, LLP, of San Francisco, CA,
`argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief was
`Daralyn J. Durie.
`
`The I284 patent describes “[aj computer program
`
`for
`
`handling insurance-related tasks.” 1284 patent col. 3 ll. 23-
`25. The patent discloses various software components of the
`program, including a “data component that stores, retrieves
`and manipulates data” and a client component that “transmits
`and receives data to/from the data componen .” Id. col. 3
`11. 25-29. The client component also includes a business
`component that “serves as a data cache and includes logic
`for manipulating the data.” Id. col. 3 11. 29-31. The program
`f11rther describes a controller component to handle program
`events and an adapter component to interface with a data
`repository. Id. col. 3 ll. 31-35.
`
`The specification contains detailed descriptions of the various
`software components, see id. col. 8-107, including many
`of the functions those components utilize and how those
`components interact. The patent contains two independent
`claims, both of which require generating and organizing
`insurance-related tasks.
`
`WESTLAW
`
`1
`
`USAA 1030
`
`

`
`Accenture Global Services, GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336 (2013)
`108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173
`
`is a claim to a system for generating tasks to be
`Claim 1
`performed in an insurance organization. The system stores
`information on insurance transactions in a database. Upon
`the occurrence of an event, the system determines what tasks
`need to be accomplished for that transaction and assigns those
`tasks to various authorized individuals to complete them.
`In order to accomplish this, the claimed system includes
`an insurance transaction database, a task library database,
`a client component for accessing the insurance transaction
`database, and a server component that interacts with the
`software components and controls an event processor, which
`watches for events and sends alerts to a task engine that
`determines the next tasks to be completed.
`
`Claim 1 is reproduced below:
`
`A system for generating tasks to be performed in an
`insurance organization, the system comprising:
`
`an insurance transaction database for storing information
`related to an insurance transaction,
`the insurance
`transaction
`database
`comprising
`a
`claim folder
`containing the information related to the insurance
`transaction decomposed into a plurality of levels from
`the group comprising a policy level, a claim level, a
`participant level and a line level, wherein the plurality
`of levels reflects a policy, the information related to the
`insurance transaction, claimants and mi insured person
`in a structured format;
`
`a task library database for storing rules for determining
`tasks to be completed upon an occurrence of an event;
`
`a
`
`the
`communication with
`in
`component
`client
`insurance transaction database configured for providing
`information relating to the insurance transaction, said
`client component enabling access by an assigned claim
`handler to a plurality of tasks that achieve an insurance
`related goal upon completion; and
`
`in communication with the client
`server component
`component, the transaction database and the task library
`database,
`the server component
`including an event
`processor, a task engine and a task assistant;
`
`wherein the event processor is triggered by application
`events associated with a change in the information,
`and sends an event trigger *1339 to the task engine;
`wherein in response to the event trigger, the task engine
`identifies rules in the task library database associated
`
`WESTLAW
`
`with the event and applies the information to the
`identified rules to determine the tasks to be completed,
`and populates on a task assistant the determined tasks
`to be completed, wherein the task assistant transmits the
`determined tasks to the client component.
`
`Id. col. 107 11. 25-59.
`
`Claim 8 claims a method for generating tasks to be performed
`in an insurance organization. The method takes an insurance
`transaction and applies rules to that transaction to determine
`tasks to be completed. These tasks are made accessible to
`authorized individuals who then complete the task.
`
`Claim 8 reads as follows:
`
`An automated method for generating tasks to be performed
`in an insurance organization, the method comprising:
`
`transmitting
`transaction;
`
`information
`
`related
`
`to
`
`an
`
`insurance
`
`determining characteristics ofthe information related to the
`insurance transaction;
`
`applying the characteristics ofthe information related to the
`insurance transaction to rules to determine a task to be
`
`completed, wherein an event processor interacts with an
`insurance transaction database conmining information
`related to an insurance transaction decomposed into a
`plurality of levels from the group comprising a policy
`level, a claim level, a participant
`level and a line
`level, wherein the plurality of levels reflects a policy,
`the information related to the insurance transaction,
`claimants and an insured person in a structured fonnat;
`
`transmitting the determined task to a task assistant
`accessible by an assigned claim handler, wherein said
`client component displays the determined task;
`
`allowing an authorized user to edit and perform the
`determined task and to update the information related
`to the insurance transaction in accordance with the
`
`determined task;
`
`storing the updated information related to the insurance
`transaction; and
`
`generating a historical record of the completed task.
`
`Id. col. 10811. 12-41.
`
`2
`
`

`
`Accenture Global Services, GmbH v. Guidewire Software, lnc., 728 F.3d 1336 (2013)
`108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173
`
`Both claim 1 and claim 8 disclose aspects of “generating
`tasks to be performed in an insurance organization.” Claim
`1 and claim 8 further include many of the same software
`components. They both include an insurance transaction
`database, which contains a policy level, a claim level, a
`participant level. a11d a li11e level. Further, both the system a11d
`the method claims require a client component for allowing
`an assigned claim handler to access tasks, an event processor,
`and a task assistant for scheduling and monitoring those tasks.
`
`11. District Court Proceedings
`
`18, 2007, Accenture filed suit against
`On December
`Guidewire alleging infringement of the 2284 patent as well as
`asserting various state law claims. Accenture Global Servs.,
`GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 691 F.Supp.2d 577,
`579 (D.Del.2010). Guidewire asserted multiple affirmative
`defenses including that the patent *1340 was invalid under
`35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming non-patent-eligible subject
`matter. Guidewire moved for summary judgment, asserting
`that the patent was invalid because claims 1, 8, and their
`related dependent claims did not meet
`the machine—or—
`transformation test articulated in our decision in In re Bilski,
`
`545 F.3d 943 (Fed.Cir.2008) (en banc) affd on other grounds
`sub nom. Bilski v. Kappos, 560 US. T, 130 S.Ct. 3218,
`177 L.Ed.2d 792 (2010). Because the Supreme Court had by
`then granted certiorari in Bilski, but had not yet issued its own
`decision, the district court denied the motion for summary
`judgment without prejudice, allowing Guidewire to renew
`the motion after a Supreme Court decision issued. Accenture
`Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., No. 07-
`826—SLR, 2010 WL 723003 (D.Del. Feb. 26, 2010), ECF No.
`478,
`
`issued its decision in Bilski,
`After the Supreme Court
`Guidewire renewed its motion for summary judgment,
`arguing that the /284 patent is drawn to abstract ideas that
`fail the machine-or-transformation test. On May 31, 2011,
`after briefing from both sides,
`the district court granted
`Guidewire's motion for summary judgment,
`finding the
`claims of the »284 patent ineligible because the claims are
`drawn to abstract ideas. Accenture, 800 F.Supp.2d at 621-22.
`
`The district court held that the I284 patent was “directed to
`concepts for organizing data rather than to specific devices
`or systems, and limiting the claims to the insurance industry
`does not specify the claims sufficiently to allow for their
`survival.” Id. at 621 (citing Bilski, 130 S.Ct. at 3231; Parker
`
`WESTLAW
`
`v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589-90, 98 S.Ct. 2522, 57 L.Ed.2d
`
`451 (1978)). Specifically, the court held that method claim
`8 is patent—ineligible because none of the claim limitations
`restrict claim 8 to a concrete application of the abstract idea,
`and that the dependent method claims only add “limitations
`regarding potential claim information categories.” Id. at 621.
`The district court found that system claim 1
`is patent-
`ineligible because the claim language “mirrors the language
`of the method disclosed in claim 8.” Id. Those conclusions,
`
`“in conjunction with the court's prior conclusion that the [284
`patent fails] the machine or transformation test” led the court
`to grant the motion for summary judgment of invalidity under
`§ 1 0 1 .
`
`the district court entered final judgment in
`Accordingly,
`favor of Guidewire; Accenture timely appealed the summary
`judgment holding only as to system claims 1-7, leaving the
`judgment of invalidity as to the method claims not appealed.
`Although Accenture appealed the judgment as to all system
`claims 1-7,
`the briefing and argument from both parties
`focused only on system claim 1 and method claim 8, lending
`support to the conclusion that the eligibility of dependent
`claims 2-7 depends on the eligibility of claim 1.
`
`We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`1. Related System and Method Claims
`
`[41
`[3]
`[2]
`[11
`We review the grant or denial of
`summary judgment applying the law of the relevant regional
`circuit. Teva Pharm.
`Indus. v. AslraZeneca Pharm. LP,
`
`661 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed.Cir.2011). The Third Circuit
`employs plenary review of a district court's grant of summary
`judgment, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the
`non-moving party. A. W. v. Jersey City Pub. Sells, 486 F .3d
`791, 794 (3d Cir.2007). We apply our own law, however,
`with respect to issues of substantive patent law. Aero Prods.
`Inz’l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 466 F.3d 1000, 1016
`(Fed.Cir.2006). Patent eligibility under § 101 presents an
`issue of law that we *1341 review de novo. Bancorp Servs.,
`LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. ofCan., 687 F.3d 1266, 1273
`(Fed.Cir.2012). This legal conclusion may contain underlying
`factual issues. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, No. 2010-
`
`1544, 2013 WL 3111303, at *3 (Fed.Cir. June 21, 2013).
`
`3
`
`

`
`Accenture Global Services, GmbH v. Guidewire Software, lnc., 728 F.3d 1336 (2013)
`108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173
`
`101 and its
`§
`[5] We recently evaluated 35 U.S.C.
`application to computer software in CLS Bank InI’l v. Alice
`Corp, 717 F.3d 1269 (Fed.Cir.2013) (en banc). The plurality
`opinion in CLS Bank identified a two-step process, derived
`from the Supreme Court's decision in Mayo Collaborative
`Servs. V. Prometheus Labs, lnc., — U.S. T, 132 S.Ct.
`
`1289, 182 L.Ed.2d 321 (2012), for analyzing patent eligibility
`under § 101. First,
`the court must identify “whether the
`claimed invention fits Within one of the four statutory
`classes set out in § 101.” CLS Bank, 717 F.3d at 1282.
`Second, one must assess whether any of the judicially
`recognized exceptions to subject—matter eligibility apply,
`including whether the claims are to patent-ineligible abstract
`ideas. Id. (citing Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1302-03).
`
`In the case of abstractness, the court must determine
`[6]
`whether the claim poses “any risk of preempting an abstract
`idea.” Id To do so the court must first “identify and define
`Whatever fundamental concept appears wrapped up in the
`claim.” Id.,' see also Ultmmercial, 722 F.3d at 1354-45
`
`(Lourie, J., concurring) (same). Then, proceeding with the
`preemption analysis, the balance of the claim is evaluated
`to determine whether “additional substantive limitations
`
`narrow, confine, or otherwise tie down the claim so that, in
`practical terms, it does not cover the full abstract idea itself.”
`CLSBGVIIC, 717 F.3d at 1282 (citing ll/Iayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1300;
`Bilski, 130 S.Ct. at 3231; Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187,
`101 S.Ct. 1048).
`
`in that
`Although CLS Bank issued as a plurality opinion,
`case a majority of the court held that system claims that
`closely track method claims and are grounded by the same
`meaningful limitations will generally rise and fall together.
`Id at 1274 n.
`1 (Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna, & Wallach,
`.l.l., plurality opinion)
`(“[E]ight judges, a majority, have
`concluded that the particular method, medium, and system
`claims at issue in this case should rise or fall together in the §
`101 analysis”). Those judges came to that conclusion because
`the method and system claims were so closely related that
`the system claim essentially implemented the process of the
`method claim on a general purpose computer. See id. at 1291
`(“Despite minor differences in terminology
`the asserted
`method and system claims require performance of the same
`basic process. Although the system claim associates certain
`computer components with some of the method steps, none
`of the recited hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond
`generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular
`technological environment,’
`that
`is,
`implementation via
`computers.” (quoting Bilski, 130 S.Ct. at 3230));
`id. at
`
`1322 (Newman, J., concurring in part and dissenting in
`part) (“[P]atent eligibility does not depend on the form of
`the claim, whether computer—implemented innovations are
`claimed as a method or a system or a storage medium, whether
`implemented in hardware or software. Patent eligibility does
`not turn on the ingenuity of the draftsman.”). That is the case
`here.
`
`The district court in this case held that the method claims
`
`of the I 284 patent are invalid under § 101. Accenture, 800
`F .Supp.2d at 621-22. That judgment was not appealed by
`Accenture. Appellant Br. 10 n. 3. Because the judgment as to
`the method claims was not appealed, it is final and conclusive.
`See Engel Indus, Inc. v. Lockformer Co, 166 F.3d 1379,
`1387 (Fed.Cir.1999) (“An issue that falls within the scope
`of the judgment appealed from but *1342 is not raised by
`the appellant in its opening brief on appeal is necessarily
`waivedf’); see also Miss. Chem. Corp. v. Swift Agr. Chems.,
`717 F.2d 1374, 1376-77 (Fed.Cir.1983).
`
`[7] We conclude that the district court's decision on patent-
`ineligibility of the system claims must also be affirmed, both
`because the system claims offer no meaningful limitations
`beyond the method claims that have been held patent-
`ineligible and because, when considered on their own, under
`Mayo and our plurality opinion in CLS Bank,
`they fail to
`pass muster. Although the issue of the patent eligibility of the
`method claims is not before us, as it has not been appealed, it
`is plain to us that, as the district court held, those claims are
`ineligible for patent.
`
`Because the 2284 patents method claims have been found
`to be patent
`ineligible, We first compare the substantive
`limitations of the method claim and the system claim to
`see if the system claim offers a “meaningful limitation”
`to the abstract method claim, which has already been
`adjudicated to be patent-ineligible. CLS Bank, 717 F.3d at
`1291. Under this analysis, we compare the two claims to
`determine what limitations overlap, then identify the system
`claim's additional limitations. Essentially, we must determine
`whether the system claim offers meaningful
`limitations
`“beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a
`particular technological environment.’ ” Id. (quoting Bilski,
`130 S.Ct. at 3230).
`
`It is not disputed by the parties that the 2284 patent's system
`claim 1
`includes virtually the same limitations and many
`of the same software components as the patent-ineligible
`method claims. Both claims are for “generating tasks to be
`
`WESTLAW
`
`4
`
`

`
`Accenture Global Services, GmbH v. Guidewire Software, lnc., 728 F.3d 1336 (2013)
`108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173
`
`performed in an insurance organization.” /284 patent col.
`107 11. 25-26, col. 108 11. 11-12. Both the claimed system
`and the claimed method contain an insurance transaction
`
`database containing information relating to an insurance
`transaction “decomposed into a plurality of levels from the
`group comprising a policy level, a claim level, a participant
`level and a line level, wherein the plurality of levels reflects
`a policy, the information related to the insurance transaction,
`claimants and an insured person in a structured format.” Id
`col. 107 11. 28-36, col. 108 11. 20-30. Additionally, claim 1
`a11d claim 8 both co11tain: a client component, id. col. 107
`l. 40, col. 108 11. 34-39; a task assistant, id. col. 107 l. 49,
`col. 108 1. 31; and an event processor, id. col. 107 1. 49, col.
`108 l. 21. The system claims are simply the method claims
`implemented on a system for performing the method.
`
`Accenture only points to system claim 1's inclusion of an
`insurance claim folder, a task library database, a server
`component, and a task engine in attempting to show that
`the system claim is meaningfully different from the I 284
`patent's method claims. However, these software components
`are all present in the method claims, albeit without a specific
`reference to those components by name.
`
`Although system claim 1 specifically includes a task engine,
`id. col. 107 1. 49, method claim 8 includes all the components
`required for a task engine. Compare id. col. 107 11. 1-4
`with id col. 108 ll. 17-22. According to the specification,
`the task engine “follows a process of evaluating events,
`determining claim characteristics, a11d matching the claim's
`characteristics to tasks defined in the Task Library.” Id. col.
`107 11. 1-4. Method claim 8, likewise,
`includes an event
`
`processor, “determin[es] characteristics,” and “appl[ies] the
`characteristics
`to determine a task to be completed.”
`Id. col. 108 11. 17-22. Method claim 8 thus includes the
`
`limitations of the task engine, albeit without calling it a task
`engine. Likewise, the server component of system claim 1
`includes *l343 “an event processor, a task engine and a task
`assistant,” id. col. 107 11. 48-49, all of which are present in
`the method ofclaim 8, id. col. 108 11. 17-34.
`
`For the claim folder, system claim 1 describes the claim
`folder as a component within the insurance transaction
`
`/284 pate11t col. 107 11. 29-31 (“the insurance
`database.
`transaction database comprising a claim folder containing
`the information related to the insurance transaction”). The
`claim folder “manages claim information
`by providing a
`structured and easy to use interface.... [It] decomposes a claim
`into different levels that reflect the policy, the insured, the
`
`WESTLAW
`
`claim, the claimants, and the claimant's lines.” Id. col. 83 11.
`
`117-19, col. 84 11. 34-36. These levels are already present
`in the method claim's insurance transaction database. In fact,
`method claim 8's description of the insurance transaction
`database is an almost verbatim duplicate of system claim 1's
`description, even without all explicit reference to the claim
`folder. The insurance transaction database of method claim
`8 also stores insurance claims in a structured environment
`
`and decomposes them into different levels. Thus, the claim
`folder only provides insignificant activity that does not
`meaningfully differentiate the system claim from the method
`claim. Cf Diamondv. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92, 101 S.Ct.
`1048, 67 L.Ed.2d 155 (1981) (“[I]nsignif1cant post—solution
`activity will not transform an unpatentable principle into a
`patentable process”).
`
`Regarding the task library database, system claim 1 discloses
`that
`the task library database is “for storing rules for
`determining tasks to be completed upon an occurrence of
`an event.” Id col. 107 11. 38-39. However, i11 method claim
`8,
`the information relating to the insurance transaction is
`applied to “rules to determine a task to be completed, wherein
`an event processor interacts with an insurance transaction
`database....” Id. col. 108 11. 19-22. The task library database
`is not mentioned in the specification, although it is apparently
`a database of the rules described as the Task Library,
`id.
`col. 107 11. 5-13, so that the only information relating to
`that component is provided by system claim 1 and its related
`dependent claims. Nevertheless, the task library database is
`simply a formalized collection of the rules that are present a11d
`applied to the insurance transaction information in method
`claim 8.
`
`Indeed, even the specification of the »284 patent makes little
`distinction between the system a11d method claims. The pate11t
`describes the invention as “[a] computer program
`for
`developing component based software capable of handling
`insurance-related tasks.” Id col. 3 11. 23-25. The patent
`then discloses detailed software descriptions of the various
`software components without differentiating between the
`system or method claims. Further, although the patent's
`Figure 1 shows a schematic diagram of the invention, one
`that includes computer hardware, the schematic's hardware
`is merely composed of generic computer components
`that would be present
`in any general purpose computer.
`See id.
`fig.
`1
`(disclosing a CPU, ROM, RAM,
`I/O
`Adapter, Communication Adapter, Display Adapter, and
`a User Interface Adapter). The patent calls Figure 1 a
`"representative hardware environment,” id. col.
`1
`1. 13,
`
`5
`
`

`
`Accenture Global Services, GmbH v. Guidewire Software, lnc., 728 F.3d 1336 (2013)
`108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173
`
`while also acknowledging that the hardware represented in
`Figure 1 “illustrates a typical hardware configuration of a
`workstation,” id. col. 1 11. 12—15. The patent thus discloses
`that
`the representative hardware for the 2284 patent is a
`generic computer. In fact, other than the preamble to claim
`1 stating that it is a system claim, the limitations of system
`claim 1 recite no specific hardware that differentiates it from
`method claim 8. Indeed, in this case “[t] *1344 he system
`claims are [akin] to stating the abstract idea [of the method
`claim]
`and adding the words: ‘apply it’ on a computer.”
`CLS Bank, 717 F .3d at 1291 (plurality opinion) (citing Mayo,
`132 S.Ct. at 1294).
`
`Because the system claim and method claim contain only
`“minor differences in terminology [but] require performance
`of the same basic process,” id. at 1291, they should rise or
`fall together. Accenture only cited four additional limitations
`in system claim 1, and we have already indicated why those
`limitations do not meaningfully distinguish the abstract idea
`over the patent ineligible method claim. While it is 11ot always
`true that related system claims are patent-ineligible because
`similar method claims are, when they exist in the same patent
`and are shown to contain insignificant meaningful limitations,
`the conclusion of ineligibility is inescapable. Thus, like the
`u11appealed method claims, the system claims of the I284
`patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`II. The System Claims on their Own
`
`[8] As indicated earlier, the system claims are ineligible for
`patenting, aside from the status of the method claims, because
`they fail to include limitations that set them apart from the
`abstract idea of handling insurance-related information.
`
`The district court, relying on the Supreme Court's Bilski
`opinion, found that all claims of the 2284 patent were invalid
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court determined that the abstract
`idea of the patent was drawn to “concepts for organizing data
`rather than to specific devices or systems.” Accenture, 800
`F.Supp.2d at 621. The court further held that the limitations
`present in the claims did not significantly distinguish the
`claims from that abstract idea. Id. at 621 (citing Bilski, 130
`S.Ct. at 3231; Parker, 437 U.S. at 589-90, 98 S.Ct. 2522).
`In this regard, the district court's analysis was similar to the
`abstractness analysis articulated in the plurality opinion of
`CLS Bank.
`
`remains patent-
`Accenture argues that system claim 1
`eligible even after our decision in CLS Bank. It contends
`that
`the claim is patent-eligible because the »284 patent
`implements the general idea of generating tasks for insurance
`claim processing, but narrows it
`through its recitation
`of a combination of computer components including all
`insurance transaction database, a task library database, a
`client component, and a server component, which includes
`an event processor, a task engine, and a task assistant.
`Accenture further argues that the complexity and detail of
`the specification demonstrate that the patent is an advance
`in computer software and not simply a claim to an abstract
`idea. Additionally, Accenture points to our recently—issued
`decision in Ultramercial as support for the patent-eligibility
`of system claim 1.
`
`Guidewire responds that system claim 1 sets forth the same
`steps and recites all the same elements as method claim 8
`and requires no specific hardware or any particular algorithm.
`With regard to Ultramercial, Guidewire distinguishes that
`case based on its procedural posture and the fact that the
`district court in Ulzramercial did not have the benefit of claim
`
`con stmcti on or discovery.
`
`The abstract idea at the heart of system claim 1 of the /284
`patent is “generating tasks [based on] rules
`to be completed
`
`upon the occurrence of an event.” 2284 patent col. 107 ll. 25,
`38-39. Although not as broad as the district court's abstract
`idea of organizing data, it is nonetheless an abstract concept.
`Having identified the abstract idea of the claim, we proceed
`with a preemption analysis to determine whether “additional
`substantive limitations
`narrow, confine, or otherwise tie
`
`down the *l345 claim so that, in practical terms, it does not
`cover the full abstract idea itself.” CLS Bank, 717 F.3d at 1282
`
`(citing Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1300; Bi/ski, 130 S.Ct. at 3231;
`Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187, 101 S.Ct. 1048); see also
`Ultramercial, 722 F.3d at 1344 (“[T]he relevant inquiry is
`whether a claim, as a whole, includes meamfngfiil limitations
`restricting it to an application, rather than merely an abstract
`idea.” (citing Prometheus, 132 S.Ct. at 1297)).
`
`[9] Accenture attempts to limit the abstract idea of claim
`1 by applying it
`in a computer environment and within
`the insurance industry. However, those types of limitations
`do not “narrow, confine, or otherwise tie down the claim.”
`
`As we have recently held, simply implementing an abstract
`concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that
`concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a
`patent-eligible one. See Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280. Further,
`
`WESTLAW
`
`6
`
`

`
`Accenture Global Services, GmbH v. Guidewire Software, lnc., 728 F.3d 1336 (2013)
`108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173
`
`as the Supreme Court stated in Bilski, limiting the application
`of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily
`guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea. Bilski,
`130 S.Ct. at 3231 (finding that limiting abstract concept of
`hedging risk to the commodities and energy markets did
`not make claim patent—eligible); see also Die/1r, 450 U.S.
`at 191, 101 S.Ct. 1048 (stating that the prohibition against
`patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by
`attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular
`technological environment” (citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584,
`98 S.Ct. 2522)). Accenture's attempts to limit the abstract
`concept
`to a computer implementation and to a specific
`industry thus do not provide additional substantive limitations
`to avoid preempting the abstract idea of system claim 1.
`
`[10]
`Regarding Accenture's argument concerning the
`complexity of the specification, including the specification's
`detailed software implementation guidelines, the important
`inquiry for a § 101 analysis is to look to the claim. “When the
`insignificant coinputer-based limitations are set aside from
`those claims that contain such limitations, the question under
`§ 101 reduces to an analysis of what additional features
`remain in the claims.” Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1279 (citing
`ll/Iayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1297). The limitations of claim 1 are
`essentially a database of tasks, a means to allow a client
`to access those tasks, and a set of rules that are applied to
`that task on a given event. Although the specification of the
`»284 patent contains very detailed software implementation
`guidelines,
`the system claims themselves only contain
`generalized software components arranged to implement an
`abstract concept on a computer. The limitations of the system
`claims of the I284 patent do not provide sufficient additional
`features or limit the abstract concept in a meaningful way. In
`other words, the complexity of the implementing software or
`the level of detail in the specification does not transform a
`claim reciting only an abstract concept into a patent—eligible
`system or method.
`
`Accenture argues that our decision in Ultrczmercial compels
`reversal of the district court's invalidation of the system
`claims. However, as previously discussed, unlike the patent
`at issue in Ulzramercial, Accenture's claims do not contain
`
`“significantly more than the underlying abstract concept.”
`The claims in Ultramercial contained additional limitations
`
`from the abstract idea of advertising as currency, such as
`limiting the transaction to an Internet website, offering free
`access conditioned on viewing a sponsor message, and only
`applying to a media product. See Ultramercial, 722 F.3d at
`1350.
`
`WESTLAW
`
`The /284 patent's system claim 1, however, is similar to the
`patent—ineligible system claim from CLS Bank. That claim
`*1346 contained limitations such as a data storage unit
`and a general purpose computer that received transactions,
`adjusted variables in the data storage unit, and generated
`instructions. CLS Bank, 717 F.3d at 1289. The district court's
`
`finding of patent ineligibility for the asserted system claim
`in CLS Bank was affirmed by an equally divided court. Id.
`at 1273. Similarly, in Bancorp, we found a system claim
`comprising digital storage, a policy generator, a debitor, and
`various calculators patent—ineligible because the limitations
`of that claim were directed to no more than the abstract idea
`
`of managing a stable value protected life insurance policy.
`Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1272, 1280-81. Comparing these cases,
`we find that the system claim of the '284 patent is more akin to
`the patent—ineligible claims of CLSBank and Bancorp. Unlike
`the claims at issue in Ulzramercial, the system claims in the
`»284 patent contain only generalized steps of generating a task
`in response to events.
`
`the procedural
`Moreover, we agree with Guide