Case: 19-1835 Document: 35 Page: 1 Filed: 04/30/2020
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 76-3 Filed 07/06/20 Page 1 of 10
`
`
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`UNILOC USA, INC., UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Plaintiffs-Appellants
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC., LG ELECTRONICS
`MOBILECOMM U.S.A., INC., LG ELECTRONICS,
`INC.,
`Defendants-Appellees
`______________________
`
`2019-1835
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the
`Northern District of California in No. 5:18-cv-06738-LHK,
`Judge Lucy H. Koh.
`______________________
`
`Decided: April 30, 2020
`______________________
`
`JAMES J. FOSTER, Prince Lobel Tye LLP, Boston, MA,
`argued for plaintiffs-appellants.
`
` J. MICHAEL JAKES, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for de-
`fendants-appellees. Also represented by JOSEPH PRESTON
`LONG.
` ______________________
`
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1835 Document: 35 Page: 2 Filed: 04/30/2020
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 76-3 Filed 07/06/20 Page 2 of 10
`
`2
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. v. LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC.
`
`Before MOORE, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
`MOORE, Circuit Judge.
`Uniloc USA, Inc., Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc
`2017 LLC (collectively, Uniloc) sued LG Electronics USA,
`Inc., LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc. and LG Elec-
`tronics, Inc. (collectively, LG) in the United States District
`Court for the Northern District of California, alleging in-
`fringement of claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049. LG
`moved to dismiss Uniloc’s Second Amended Complaint un-
`der Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing the claims of the ’049
`patent are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district
`court granted LG’s motion, determining that the asserted
`claims are directed to an abstract idea and do not recite an
`inventive concept. Uniloc USA Inc. v. LG Elecs. USA Inc.,
`379 F. Supp. 3d 974, 1000 (N.D. Cal. 2019). Because we
`hold the claims are not directed to ineligible subject matter
`under § 101, we reverse and remand.
`BACKGROUND
`The ’049 patent is directed to a communication system
`comprising a primary station (e.g., a base station) and at
`least one secondary station (e.g., a computer mouse or key-
`board). ’049 patent at Abstract; id. at 1:28–31, 3:31–34. In
`conventional systems, such as Bluetooth networks,1 two
`devices that share a common communication channel form
`ad hoc networks known as “piconets.” Id. at 1:19–21. Join-
`ing a piconet requires the completion of two sets of proce-
`dures, namely an “inquiry” procedure and a “page”
`procedure. Id. at 1:54–55. The inquiry procedure allows a
`primary station to identify secondary stations and it allows
`secondary stations to issue a request to join the piconet. Id.
`
`1 Although the claimed invention is described with
`particular reference to a Bluetooth system, it is also appli-
`cable to other communication systems. ’049 patent at 1:6–
`8.
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1835 Document: 35 Page: 3 Filed: 04/30/2020
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 76-3 Filed 07/06/20 Page 3 of 10
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. v. LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC.
`
`3
`
`at 1:56–57. The page procedure in turn allows a primary
`station to invite secondary stations to join the piconet. Id.
`at 1:57–58. Together, it can take several tens of seconds to
`complete the inquiry and page procedures so that a device
`joins a piconet and is able to transfer user input to the pri-
`mary station. Id. at 1:58–61. Once a piconet is formed, the
`primary station “polls” secondary stations to determine
`whether they have data to share over the communication
`channel.
`Because many secondary stations are battery-oper-
`ated, secondary stations may enter a “park” mode and
`cease active communications with the primary station to
`conserve power. Id. at 1:43–45, 1:62–66. A secondary sta-
`tion in parked mode remains synchronized with the pri-
`mary station, but it must be polled before it can leave park
`mode and actively communicate with the primary station.
`Id. at 1:43–51. In conventional systems, primary stations
`alternate between sending inquiry messages to identify
`new secondary stations and polling secondary stations al-
`ready connected to the piconet, including parked devices,
`to determine whether they have information to transmit.
`Therefore, under the conventional polling process, a sec-
`ondary station could experience delays of tens of seconds
`both in initially joining a piconet and in transmitting data
`after entering park mode.
`The specification explains that the invention improves
`conventional communication systems by including a data
`field for polling as part of the inquiry message, thereby al-
`lowing primary stations to send inquiry messages and con-
`duct polling simultaneously. Id. at Abstract. The claimed
`invention therefore enables “a rapid response time without
`the need for a permanently active communication link” be-
`tween a parked secondary station and the primary station.
`Id. at Abstract. Claim 2 of the ’049 patent, which the dis-
`trict court treated as representative, recites:
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1835 Document: 35 Page: 4 Filed: 04/30/2020
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 76-3 Filed 07/06/20 Page 4 of 10
`
`4
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. v. LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC.
`
`2. A primary station for use in a communications
`system comprising at least one secondary sta-
`tion, wherein means are provided
`for broadcasting a series of inquiry mes-
`sages, each in the form of a plurality of
`predetermined data fields arranged ac-
`cording to a first communications proto-
`col, and
`for adding to each inquiry message prior
`to transmission an additional data field
`for polling at least one secondary station.
`LG moved to dismiss Uniloc’s Second Amended Com-
`plaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing the claims of
`the ’049 patent are directed to ineligible subject matter un-
`der § 101. Treating claim 2 of the ’049 patent as repre-
`sentative, the district court granted LG’s motion. The
`district court held that the asserted claims are directed to
`the abstract idea of “additional polling in a wireless com-
`munication system,” analogizing the asserted claims to
`data manipulation claims we held ineligible in Two-Way
`Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874
`F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017) and Digitech Image Technolo-
`gies, LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344
`(Fed. Cir. 2014). Uniloc USA Inc., 379 F. Supp. 3d at 990.
`The district court further determined that the claims fail
`to recite an “inventive concept sufficient to save the
`claim[s].” Id. at 1000. The district court entered judgment
`in favor of LG. J.A. 1. Uniloc timely appeals. We have
`jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
`DISCUSSION
`We review a district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal un-
`der the law of the regional circuit, here the Ninth Circuit.
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882
`F.3d 1121, 1124 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Ninth Circuit re-
`views such dismissals de novo, construing all allegations of
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1835 Document: 35 Page: 5 Filed: 04/30/2020
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 76-3 Filed 07/06/20 Page 5 of 10
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. v. LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC.
`
`5
`
`material fact in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
`party. Livid Holdings Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.,
`416 F.3d 940, 946 (9th Cir. 2005). Patent eligibility under
`35 U.S.C. § 101 is a question of law, based on underlying
`factual findings. SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d
`1161, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 2018). It may be resolved on a Rule
`12(b)(6) motion “when there are no factual allegations that,
`taken as true, prevent resolving the eligibility as a matter
`of law.” Aatrix, 882 F.3d at 1125.
`Section 101 provides that “[w]hoever invents or discov-
`ers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
`composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
`thereof,” may obtain a patent. 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Su-
`preme Court has held that “[l]aws of nature, natural phe-
`nomena, and abstract ideas are not patent eligible.” Alice
`Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (quoting
`Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569
`U.S. 576, 589 (2013)). We follow the Supreme Court’s two-
`step framework for determining patent eligibility under
`§ 101. First, we determine whether the claims are directed
`to a “patent-ineligible concept,” such as an abstract idea.
`Id. at 217. If so, we “consider the elements of each claim
`both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to deter-
`mine whether the additional elements ‘transform the na-
`ture of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id.
`(quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
`Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78–79 (2012)).
`At Alice step one, we determine whether the claims are
`directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. In
`cases involving software innovations, this inquiry often
`turns on whether the claims focus on specific asserted im-
`provements in computer capabilities or instead on a pro-
`cess or system that qualifies an abstract idea for which
`computers are invoked merely as a tool. Customedia
`Techs., LLC v. DISH Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364
`(Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems,
`Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). We have
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1835 Document: 35 Page: 6 Filed: 04/30/2020
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 76-3 Filed 07/06/20 Page 6 of 10
`
`6
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. v. LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC.
`
`routinely held software claims patent eligible under Alice
`step one when they are directed to improvements to the
`functionality of a computer or network platform itself.
`In DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., for exam-
`ple, we held patent eligible claims directed to a system for
`generating a hybrid web page that maintained the “look
`and feel” of a host website. 773 F.3d 1245, 1257–59 (Fed.
`Cir. 2014). We emphasized that in “overcom[ing] a problem
`specifically arising in the realm of computer networks,” the
`claimed invention changed the normal operation of the
`computer network itself and was “necessarily rooted in
`computer technology.” Id. at 1257–58. Similarly, in En-
`fish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., we held patent eligible claims
`directed to a self-referential database that improved the
`way computers operated and handled data, allowing the
`more efficient launching and adaptation of databases. 822
`F.3d 1327, 1336–39 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And in Visual
`Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., we held patent eligible
`claims “focus[ed] on a ‘specific asserted improvement in
`computer capabilities,’” namely the accommodation of dif-
`ferent types of processors without compromising perfor-
`mance. 867 F.3d 1253, 1259–60 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In
`holding the claims patent eligible, we noted that the claims
`were not directed to categorical data storage but rather
`were limited to certain types of data to be stored. Id.
`In Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., we
`held patent eligible claims directed to a non-abstract im-
`provement to computer security. 908 F.3d 1343, 1347–49
`(Fed. Cir. 2018). We determined the claims addressed the
`“vulnerability of license-authorization software to hacking”
`and were thus “directed to a solution to a computer-func-
`tionality problem.” Id. at 1349; see also Finjan, 879 F.3d at
`1304–06 (holding that claims to a “behavior-based virus
`scan” provided greater computer security and were thus di-
`rected to a patent-eligible improvement in computer func-
`tionality). In Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1835 Document: 35 Page: 7 Filed: 04/30/2020
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 76-3 Filed 07/06/20 Page 7 of 10
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. v. LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC.
`
`7
`
`LLC, we held patent eligible claims reciting “a specific
`method for navigating through three-dimensional elec-
`tronic spreadsheets” because the claimed invention “im-
`prov[ed] computers’ functionality as a tool able to instantly
`access all parts of complex three-dimensional electronic
`spreadsheets.” 906 F.3d 999, 1007–08 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`And in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics,
`Inc., we held patent eligible claims directed to an improved
`user interface that enabled users to more quickly access
`stored data and programs in small-screen electronics. 880
`F.3d 1356, 1359–63 (Fed. Cir. 2018). We determined that
`the claimed invention in Core Wireless “improve[d] the ef-
`ficiency of using the electronic device by bringing together
`a limited list of common functions and commonly accessed
`stored data, which can be accessed directly from the main
`menu.” Id. at 1363. We therefore held that “the claims
`[we]re directed to an improvement in the functioning of
`computers, particularly those with small screens.” Id.
`In accordance with this precedent, we hold the claims
`at issue are directed to a patent-eligible improvement to
`computer functionality, namely the reduction of latency ex-
`perienced by parked secondary stations in communication
`systems. Claim 2 of the ’049 patent recites a primary sta-
`tion for use in a communication system “wherein means
`are provided for . . . adding to each inquiry message prior
`to transmission an additional data field for polling at least
`one secondary station.” ’049 patent at Claim 2. The addi-
`tional data field enables a primary station to simultane-
`ously send inquiry messages and poll parked secondary
`stations. Id. at Abstract. The claimed invention therefore
`eliminates or reduces the delay present in conventional
`systems where the primary station alternates between
`polling and sending inquiry messages. See, e.g., id. at 2:8–
`15, 6:55–60. Therefore, like the claims in DDR, the claimed
`invention changes the normal operation of the communica-
`tion system itself to “overcome a problem specifically aris-
`ing in the realm of computer networks.” See 773 F.3d at
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1835 Document: 35 Page: 8 Filed: 04/30/2020
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 76-3 Filed 07/06/20 Page 8 of 10
`
`8
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. v. LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC.
`
`1257–58. In doing so, the claimed invention, like the im-
`provement in computer memory we held patent eligible in
`Visual Memory, enables the communication system to ac-
`commodate additional devices, such as battery-operated
`secondary stations, without compromising performance.
`See 867 F.3d at 1258–60.
`LG does not dispute that reducing latency experienced
`by parked secondary stations in conventional communica-
`tion systems is a patent-eligible improvement to computer
`functionality. Instead, it contends that the claims are not
`sufficiently directed to this purported improvement. It ar-
`gues the claims merely recite the observation that conven-
`tional inquiry messages can accommodate conventional
`polling “using result-based functional language” and ge-
`neric Bluetooth components. LG therefore contends that
`the district court correctly analogized to the abstract “data
`manipulation” claims we held ineligible in prior cases. We
`do not agree.
`The district court’s reliance on our prior cases is mis-
`placed. In Digitech, the claims recited “a process of taking
`two data sets and combining them into a single data set,”
`called a device profile. 758 F.3d at 1351. Although the
`claimed device profile could purportedly be used in reduc-
`ing image distortion, merely generating the claimed device
`profile did not alone reduce image distortion or otherwise
`improve image processing. Id. at 1347–48. The claims
`were not directed to a patent-eligible technological im-
`provement but rather recited “the ineligible abstract idea
`of gathering and combining data that does not require in-
`put from a physical device.” Id. at 1351.
`The claims we held ineligible in Two-Way Media simi-
`larly failed to concretely capture any improvement in com-
`puter functionality. In Two-Way Media, the claims recited
`a method of transmitting packets of information over a
`communications network comprising: converting infor-
`mation into streams of digital packets; routing the streams
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1835 Document: 35 Page: 9 Filed: 04/30/2020
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 76-3 Filed 07/06/20 Page 9 of 10
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. v. LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC.
`
`9
`
`to users; controlling the routing; and monitoring the recep-
`tion of packets by the users. 874 F.3d at 1334. Two-Way
`Media argued that the claims solved data transmission
`problems, including load management and bottlenecking,
`but the claimed method was not directed to those improve-
`ments. Id. at 1336–37. We therefore held the claims inel-
`igible because they merely recited a series of abstract steps
`(“converting,” “routing,” “controlling,” “monitoring,” and
`“accumulating records”) using “result-based functional lan-
`guage” without the means for achieving any purported
`technological improvement. Id. at 1337.
`The claims at issue do not merely recite generalized
`steps to be performed on a computer using conventional
`computer activity. Instead, they are directed to “adding to
`each inquiry message prior to transmission an addi-
`tional data field for polling at least one secondary sta-
`tion.” See, e.g., ’049 patent at Claim 2. And this change
`in the manner of transmitting data results in reduced
`response time by peripheral devices which are part of
`the claimed system. As the patent explains, for second-
`ary stations joining a piconet in the prior art systems, “it
`could take half a minute or more from the time a user
`moves a mouse to a cursor moving on a screen.” Id. at 2:10–
`12. Because polling was “suspended during this cycle, for
`up to 10.24 seconds at a time,” parked secondary stations
`in prior art systems could experience similar delays after
`each period of inactivity. Id. at 2:13–16. The claimed ad-
`dition of a data field for polling to the inquiry message sig-
`nificantly reduces the response time, enabling secondary
`stations to respond a fraction of a second later. See, e.g.,
`’049 patent at 5:36–41. Even LG concedes that this reduc-
`tion in latency “is the very reason for polling during the
`inquiry process in the first place.” Appellees’ Br. 54 (citing,
`e.g., J.A. 1375–77, 1394). To the extent LG argues that
`the claims themselves must expressly mention the re-
`duced latency achieved by the claimed system, LG is in
`error. Claims need not articulate the advantages of the
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1835 Document: 35 Page: 10 Filed: 04/30/2020
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 76-3 Filed 07/06/20 Page 10 of 10
`
`10
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. v. LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC.
`
`claimed combinations to be eligible. We conclude that
`the claims at issue are not directed to the abstract idea
`of performing additional polling in wireless communication
`systems or performing additional polling using inquiry
`messages. These claims are directed to a specific asserted
`improvement to the functionality of the communication
`system itself.
`The claimed invention’s compatibility with conven-
`tional communication systems does not render it abstract.
`Nor does the fact that the improvement is not defined by
`reference to “physical” components. Enfish, 822 F.3d at
`1339. “To hold otherwise risks resurrecting a bright-line
`machine-or-transformation test, or creating a categorical
`ban on software patents.” Id. (citations omitted). Our prec-
`edent is clear that software can make patent-eligible im-
`provements to computer technology, and related claims are
`eligible as long as they are directed to non-abstract im-
`provements to the functionality of a computer or network
`platform itself. See Customedia Techs., 951 F.3d at 1364
`(collecting cases). The claims of the ’049 patent recite a
`specific improvement in the functionality of the communi-
`cation system itself, namely the reduction of latency expe-
`rienced by parked secondary stations. This is sufficient to
`pass muster under Alice step one. Because we hold the
`claims patent eligible under Alice step one, we need not
`proceed to the second step of Alice. Visual Memory, 867
`F.3d at 1262.
`
`CONCLUSION
`We have considered LG’s remaining arguments and
`find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we con-
`clude that the claims of the ’049 patent are not directed to
`patent-ineligible subject matter under § 101 and therefore
`reverse and remand the district court’s decision.
`REVERSED AND REMANDED
`
`