Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01180/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01180-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Amdocs (Israel) Limited
Appellant
Openet Telecom LTD.
Appellee
Openet Telecom, Inc.
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

 

AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

OPENET TELECOM, INC., 

OPENET TELECOM LTD.,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2015-1180

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Virginia in No. 1:10-cv-00910-LMBTRJ, Judge Leonie M. Brinkema.

______________________ 

Decided: November 1, 2016

______________________ 

S. CALVIN WALDEN, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and 

Dorr LLP, New York, NY, argued for plaintiff-appellant. 

Also represented by BRITTANY BLUEITT AMADI, GREGORY 

H. LANTIER, JAMES QUARLES III, Washington, DC.

BRIAN PANDYA, Wiley Rein, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by SCOTT 

A. FELDER, JAMES HAROLD WALLACE, JR., ERIC HAROLD 

WEISBLATT. 

______________________ 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 1 Filed: 11/01/2016
2 AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 

Before NEWMAN, PLAGER, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge PLAGER. 

Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge REYNA. 

PLAGER, Circuit Judge. 

This is a patent case, in which the outcome turns on 

the application of the ‘abstract idea’ test, a judiciallycreated limitation on patent eligibility under § 101 of the 

Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 101. 

Plaintiff-Appellant Amdocs (Israel) Limited 

(“Amdocs”) sued Defendants-Appellees Openet Telecom, 

Inc. and Openet Telecom Ltd. (collectively, “Openet”) for 

infringing four U.S. Patents, Nos. 7,631,065 (“’065 patent”); 7,412,510 (“’510 patent”); 6,947,984 (“’984 patent”); 

and 6,836,797 (“’797 patent”). In the wake of Alice Corp. 

v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the

district court granted Openet’s motion for judgment on 

the pleadings, finding that the patents were not directed 

to patent eligible subject matter under § 101. Amdocs 

appeals.

For the reasons we shall explain, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

BACKGROUND

Prosecution History and Technology

Although we need not recapitulate every detail of 

these patents, we describe them sufficiently for purposes 

of this opinion. Additional background is available in our 

opinion from the prior appeal in this case. See Amdocs 

(Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 761 F.3d 1329, 1331–

36 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Amdocs I”).

 The patents in suit concern, inter alia, parts of a 

system designed to solve an accounting and billing problem faced by network service providers. Each patent

descends from U.S. Patent Application No. 09/442,876, 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 2 Filed: 11/01/2016
AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 3

which issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,418,467. One of the 

patents in suit, the ’797 patent, issued as a result of a 

continuation-in-part application, while the other three 

patents issued as a result of continuation applications.

The ’065 patent concerns a system, method, and computer program for merging data in a network-based 

filtering and aggregating platform as well as a related 

apparatus for enhancing networking accounting data 

records. The ’510 patent concerns a system, method, and 

computer program for reporting on the collection of network usage information. The ’984 patent concerns a 

system and accompanying method and computer program 

for reporting on the collection of network usage information from a plurality of network devices. The ’797 

patent concerns a system, method, and computer program 

for generating a single record reflecting multiple services 

for accounting purposes.

Each patent’s written description describes the same 

system, which allows network service providers to account 

for and bill for internet protocol (“IP”) network communications. The system includes network devices; information source modules (“ISMs”); gatherers; a central 

event manager (“CEM”); a central database; a user interface server; and terminals or clients. See, e.g., ’065 patent 

at 4:29–33, 43–54.

Network devices represent any devices that could be 

included on a network, including application servers, and 

also represent the source of information accessed by the 

ISMs. Id. at 5:10–26. The ISMs act as an interface 

between the gatherers and the network devices and 

enable the gatherers to collect data from the network 

devices. Id. at 5:33–35. The ISMs represent modular 

interfaces that send IP usage data in real time from 

network devices to gatherers. Id. at 5:35–39. Gatherers 

can be hardware and software installed on the same 

network segment as a network device or on an application 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 3 Filed: 11/01/2016
4 AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 

server itself to minimize the data traffic impact on a 

network; gatherers “gather the information from the 

ISMs.” Id. at 6:54, 58–64. Gatherers also normalize data 

from the various types of ISMs and serve as a distributed 

filtering and aggregation system. Id. at 7:5–8. The CEM 

provides management and control of the ISMs and gatherers, and the CEM can perform several functions including performing data merges to remove redundant data. 

Id. at 8:13–67. The central database is the optional 

central repository of the information collected by the 

system and is one example of a sink for the data generated by the system. Id. at 9:1–5. The user interface server 

allows multiple clients or terminals to access the system, 

and its primary purpose is to provide remote and local 

platform independent control for the system. Id. at 10:5–

12. 

Importantly, these components are arrayed in a distributed architecture that minimizes the impact on network and system resources. Id. at 3:56–65. Through this 

distributed architecture, the system minimizes network 

impact by collecting and processing data close to its 

source. Id. The system includes distributed data gathering, filtering, and enhancements that enable load distribution. Id. at 4:33–42. This allows data to reside close to 

the information sources, thereby reducing congestion in 

network bottlenecks, while still allowing data to be accessible from a central location. Id. at 4:35–39. Each patent 

explains that this is an advantage over prior art systems 

that stored information in one location, which made it 

difficult to keep up with massive record flows from the 

network devices and which required huge databases. See, 

e.g., id. at 4:39–42.

Procedural History

In 2010, Amdocs sued Openet for patent infringement 

in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Amdocs asserted that Openet infringed 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 4 Filed: 11/01/2016
AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 5

claims 1, 4, 7, 13, and 17 of the ’065 patent; claims 16, 17, 

and 19 of the ’510 patent; claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 13 of the 

’984 patent; and claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 19 of the ’797 patent.

In its answer and counterclaim, Openet alleged invalidity, unenforceability, and non-infringement. The 

parties filed motions addressing claim construction and 

summary judgment. The district court granted Openet’s 

motion for summary judgment of non-infringement and 

Amdocs’s motion for summary judgment of no inequitable 

conduct. Upon motions of the parties, which the court 

granted, certain claim constructions were made. However, the court denied the parties’ motions for summary 

judgment with respect to validity. The court later issued 

an opinion explaining its bases for its non-infringement 

and inequitable conduct summary judgment rulings, 

while also providing its claim constructions. Amdocs 

appealed the trial court’s judgment to this court. 

On appeal, we affirmed two claim constructions and 

vacated and modified another construction. We approved 

of the district court’s construction of “enhance” to mean 

“to apply a number of field enhancements in a distributed 

fashion.” Amdocs I, 761 F.3d at 1338–40. In so doing, we

approved of the district court’s “reading the ‘in a distributed fashion’ and the ‘close to the source’ of network 

information requirements into the term ‘enhance.’” Id. at 

1340. We also approved of the construction of “completing” to mean “enhance a record until all required fields 

have been populated.” Id. 

However, we vacated the district court’s construction 

of “single record represents each of the plurality of services” as “one record that includes customer usage data 

for each of the plurality of services used by the customer 

on the network” but not including records that aggregated 

usage data. Id. We substituted a plain meaning interpretation that allowed for the inclusion of a plurality of 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 5 Filed: 11/01/2016
6 AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 

services by aggregation. Id. at 1340–41. As a result, we 

reversed the grant of summary judgment with respect to 

the ’065 patent, the ’510 patent, and the ’984 patent and 

vacated the grant of summary judgment with respect to 

the ’797 patent. Id. at 1341–43.

During the time the case was before us on appeal from 

the district court, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in 

Alice. Following the remand from this court in Amdocs I, 

Openet moved for judgment on the pleadings by arguing 

that, pursuant to Alice, all asserted claims were ineligible 

under § 101. In response, Amdocs argued that Openet’s 

motion was procedurally barred and contrary to the law of 

the case.

The district court permitted the motion because it had 

not resolved whether the patents were directed to ineligible subject matter under § 101 and because, even if the 

issue had been addressed, the court stated that Alice 

“represented a change, or a significant clarification, of the 

law.” Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 56 F. 

Supp. 3d 813, 819 (E.D. Va. 2014).

In due course, the district court granted Openet’s motion and invalidated the asserted claims of all four patents as ineligible under § 101. Amdocs appeals. We have 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

DISCUSSION

We review a grant of judgment on the pleadings under 

the procedural law of the regional circuit. Allergan, Inc. 

v. Athena Cosmetics, Inc., 640 F.3d 1377, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 

2011). The Fourth Circuit reviews a grant of judgment on 

the pleadings without deference, applying the same 

standard as a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 12(b)(6). Burbach Broad. Co. of Del. v. Elkins Radio 

Corp., 278 F.3d 401, 405–06 (4th Cir. 2002). Therefore, 

we assume the facts alleged in the complaint are true and 

draw all reasonable factual inferences in favor of the nonCase: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 6 Filed: 11/01/2016
AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 7

movant. Id. We review the district court’s determination 

of patent eligibility under § 101 without deference, as a 

question of law. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 

773 F.3d 1245, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

1.

The Doctrine: The statutory rule governing patent eligibility—that is, the criteria for identifying inventions 

that are eligible to be patented—is found in § 101 of the 

Patent Act. As recodified by Congress in 1952, § 101 

provides that “[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and 

useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of 

matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may 

obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and 

requirements of this title.”

It is obvious that the subject matter described in § 101 

is expansive. As the Supreme Court has observed, the 

“subject-matter provisions of the patent law have been 

cast in broad terms to fulfill the constitutional and statutory goal of promoting ‘the Progress of Science and the 

useful Arts.’” Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 315 

(1980) (quoting U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8). 

Despite this broad mandate, judicial gloss on the law

of patent eligibility has long recognized that certain 

fundamental principles are not included in that broad 

statutory grant. Though over the years these principles 

have been described in differing terms, in today’s vernacular these exceptions are called “[l]aws of nature, natural 

phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354

(quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Le Roy v. 

Tatham, 55 U.S. 156, 183 (1853) (Nelson, J., dissenting)

(tracing the “proper subject-matter of a patent” to at least 

the British case of Boulton v. Bull, 2 H. Bl. 463, 126 Eng. 

Rep. 651 (C.P. 1795)). 

The two-step framework, set out by the Supreme 

Court for distinguishing patents that claim so-called laws 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 7 Filed: 11/01/2016
8 AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 

of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from 

those that claim patent-eligible applications of those 

concepts, is now familiar law. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at

2355 (following Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus 

Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012)). This framework is 

sometimes collectively referred to as Alice/Mayo. 

First, we determine whether “the claims at issue are 

directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If 

so, we next consider elements of each claim both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine 

whether the additional elements “‘transform the nature of 

the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting 

Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). 

The Court describes step two of this analysis as a 

search for an “inventive concept”—i.e., an element or 

ordered combination of elements that is “sufficient to 

ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” 

Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). 

2.

The Cases: Our cases generally follow the step 

one/step two Supreme Court format, reserving step two 

for the more comprehensive analysis in search of the 

‘inventive concept.’ Recent cases, however, suggest that 

there is considerable overlap between step one and step 

two, and in some situations this analysis could be accomplished without going beyond step one. See Enfish, LLC, 

v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1334–36 (Fed. Cir. 

2016); see also Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 

F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“the two stages involve 

overlapping scrutiny of the content of the claims . . . [and]

there can be close questions about when the inquiry 

should proceed from the first stage to the second); 

BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility 

LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he claims 

and their specific limitations do not readily lend themCase: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 8 Filed: 11/01/2016
AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 9

selves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a 

nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of 

the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step 

two.”). 

Whether the more detailed analysis is undertaken at 

step one or at step two, the analysis presumably would be 

based on a generally-accepted and understood definition

of, or test for, what an ‘abstract idea’ encompasses. 

However, a search for a single test or definition in the 

decided cases concerning § 101 from this court, and indeed from the Supreme Court, reveals that at present 

there is no such single, succinct, usable definition or test. 

The problem with articulating a single, universal definition of ‘abstract idea’ is that it is difficult to fashion a 

workable definition to be applied to as-yet-unknown cases 

with as-yet-unknown inventions. That is not for want of 

trying; to the extent the efforts so far have been unsuccessful it is because they often end up using alternative

but equally abstract terms or are overly narrow.1

Instead of a definition, then, the decisional mechanism courts now apply is to examine earlier cases in 

which a similar or parallel descriptive nature can be

seen—what prior cases were about, and which way they 

were decided. See, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 

 

1 For examples, compare In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 

955–56 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), reaffirming ‘machineor-transformation’ as the § 101 test for process claims, 

with Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 604 (2010), indicating 

that ‘machine-or-transformation’ is perhaps one possible 

test, but not the only one. See also the several opinions in 

this court’s CLS Bank International v. Alice Corp., 717 

F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc). 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 9 Filed: 11/01/2016
10 AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 

1353–54.2 That is the classic common law methodology 

for creating law when a single governing definitional 

context is not available. See generally Karl N. Llewellyn, 

The Common Law Tradition: Deciding Appeals (1960). 

This more flexible approach is also the approach employed by the Supreme Court. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 

2355–57. We shall follow that approach here. 

The dissent, in its discussion of the majority opinion’s 

approach, states that the analysis in which the majority 

engages involves a comparison “of the asserted claims in 

this case to the claims at issue in some, but not all, of the 

cases where we have addressed patent eligibility.” Dissent at 1. As earlier noted, applying prior precedents of 

the court to the current case is indeed the common law 

approach for deciding cases, including patent cases—i.e., 

applying the law to comparable facts. See, e.g., Alice, 134 

S. Ct. at 2355–60 (relying on precedent with respect to 

step one and step two); Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 

1353–56 (same). Furthermore, discussing in an opinion 

only the most relevant prior opinions, rather than every 

prior opinion in an actively-litigated field, is a necessary 

discipline if opinions are to be read, rather than just 

written.

The dissent offers a different paradigm for identifying 

an abstract idea: “it is apparent that a desired goal (i.e., a 

 

2 See also Robert W. Bahr, Deputy Comm’r for Patent Examination Policy, USPTO, Recent Subject Matter 

Eligibility Decisions (Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. and 

TLI Commc’ns LLC v. A.V. Automotive, LLC) (2016) at 2: 

“In summary, when performing an analysis of whether a 

claim is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A), examiners 

are to continue to determine if the claim recites (i.e., sets 

forth or describes) a concept that is similar to concepts 

previously found abstract by the courts.”

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 10 Filed: 11/01/2016
AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 11

‘result or effect’), absent structural or procedural means 

for achieving that goal, is an abstract idea.” Dissent at 6–

7. The dissent focuses on the difference between ‘means’ 

and ‘ends.’ Id. at 6. We note that, though not in terms of 

‘abstract idea’ but rather adequacy of definition, years ago 

the Supreme Court outlawed such broad ‘ends’ or function 

claiming as inconsistent with the purposes of the Patent 

Statute.3 Congress, however, a few years later softened 

the rule. Patentees could write claim language to broadly 

describe the purpose or function of their invention, and 

when they did the claim would not cover the bare function 

or goal, however performed, but only as limited to the 

particular means (and equivalents) for implementing that 

function or goal as described by the patentee in the patent’s “specification.” 

This, of course, is the “means-plus-function” practice 

codified in 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 (now § 112(f)). The dissent’s paradigm would seem similar, but differs in significant respects. Though § 112 ¶ 6 permits the ‘means’ to be 

found in the patentee’s “specification,” meaning the 

written description and the claims of the patent, the 

dissent would save the patent’s eligibility under § 101 

only if the claim at issue itself explicitly states the necessary ‘means.’ In the dissent’s step two, we must find “a 

particular means for accomplishing an underlying goal” 

through careful “limitation-by-limitation analysis” of the 

claim. Id. at 9. We commend the dissent for seeking a 

creative way of incorporating aspects of well-known 

doctrine in the search for what is an ‘abstract idea,’ but

that is not now the law, either in statute or in court 

 

3 See Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, 

329 U.S. 1 (1946). 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 11 Filed: 11/01/2016
12 AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 

decision.4 At best, as this court has previously stated, the 

dissent’s analysis may be “one helpful way of doublechecking the application of the Supreme Court’s framework to particular claims—specifically, when determining 

whether the claims meet the requirement of an inventive 

concept in application.” Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 

1356. 

3.

We begin, then, with an examination of eligible and 

ineligible claims of a similar nature from past cases. For 

example, in Digitech, one of the representative claims 

described a process of organizing information through 

mathematical correlations with merely generic gathering 

and processing activities. See Digitech Image Techs., LLC 

v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 

2014). The claim at issue:

A method of generating a device profile that describes properties of a device in a digital image 

reproduction system for capturing, transforming 

or rendering an image, said method comprising:

generating first data for describing a device dependent transformation of color information content of the image to a device independent color 

 

4 We state our concern lest the dissent’s generalizations of law may mislead the reader. In the complexities 

of § 101, the law is evolving into greater certitude based 

on experience, not on generalizations. Words out of 

context are less useful—especially if inapt. For example, 

the Court’s rejection of Samuel Morse’s notorious claim 8, 

regarding the use of electromagnetism, was for overbroad 

preemption of a natural law, not because it was an “abstract idea.” See, e.g., Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citing 

O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 112–20 (1854)).

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 12 Filed: 11/01/2016
AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 13

space through use of measured chromatic stimuli 

and device response characteristic functions;

generating second data for describing a device dependent transformation of spatial information 

content of the image in said device independent 

color space through use of spatial stimuli and device response characteristic functions; and

combining said first and second data into the device profile.

Id. at 1351 (quoting patent at issue). 

While the court did not parse the analysis into discrete step one and step two stages, it found that this claim 

recited an “ineligible abstract process of gathering and 

combining data that does not require input from a physical device” and that “the two data sets and the resulting 

device profile are ineligible subject matter.” Id. The court

observed that “[w]ithout additional limitations, a process 

that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate 

existing information to generate additional information is 

not patent eligible.” Id. The court determined that the 

claim was ineligible.

Similarly, in Content Extraction, the court examined a 

representative claim reciting:

A method of processing information from a diversity of types of hard copy documents, said method 

comprising the steps of:

(a) receiving output representing a diversity of 

types of hard copy documents from an automated 

digitizing unit and storing information from said 

diversity of types of hard copy documents into a 

memory, said information not fixed from one document to the next, said receiving step not preceded by scanning, via said automated digitizing 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 13 Filed: 11/01/2016
14 AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 

unit, of a separate document containing format 

requirements;

(b) recognizing portions of said hard copy documents corresponding to a first data field; and

(c) storing information from said portions of said 

hard copy documents corresponding to said first 

data field into memory locations for said first data 

field.

Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo 

Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

Under step one, the court characterized all of the 

claims at issue (which were similar to the representative 

claim) as being directed to the abstract idea of “1) collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data within the collected 

data set, and 3) storing that recognized data in a 

memory.” Id. at 1347. The court commented that data 

collection, recognition, and storage were “undisputedly 

well-known.” Id. Under step two, the court found no 

limitations5 that, considered alone and in an ordered

combination, transformed the claim into a patent-eligible 

application of an abstract idea. Id. at 1347–48. The court

observed that the role of a computer in a computerimplemented invention would only be meaningful in a 

§ 101 analysis if it involved more than the performance of 

“well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities 

previously known to the industry.” Id. (quoting Alice, 134 

S. Ct. at 2359). The court noted that all of the limitations 

 

5 Though the Supreme Court does not uniformly 

adhere to the practice, this court often has used the term 

“limitation” to refer to requirements stated in a patent 

claim, and the term “element” to refer to the parts of an 

entity accused of infringing. We will follow that practice 

here. 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 14 Filed: 11/01/2016
AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 15

at issue involved well-known, routine, and conventional 

functions of computers and scanners. Id. at 1348–49. 

The claims were ineligible.

More recently, in In re TLI, the court examined a representative claim that recited:

A method for recording and administering digital 

images, comprising the steps of:

recording images using a digital pick up unit in a 

telephone unit,

storing the images recorded by the digital pick up 

unit in a digital form as digital images,

transmitting data including at least the digital 

images and classification information to a server, 

wherein said classification information is prescribable by a user of the telephone unit for allocation to the digital images,

receiving the data by the server,

extracting classification information which characterizes the digital images from the received data, and

storing the digital images in the server, said step 

of storing taking into consideration the classification information.

In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 610 

(Fed. Cir. 2016). 

Under step one, the court found that the claims were 

directed to the abstract idea of “classifying and storing 

digital images in an organized manner.” Id. at 613. Also 

under step one, the court found that the claims were not 

directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality, but instead were directed to the “use of conventional 

or generic technology in a nascent, but well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflect[ed] 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 15 Filed: 11/01/2016
16 AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 

an inventive solution to any problem presented by combining the two.” Id. at 612. Under step two, the court

found that the claims did not recite any limitations that 

when considered individually and as an ordered combination transformed the abstract idea into a patent-eligible 

application of that idea. Instead, the recited components 

and functions were well-understood, routine, conventional 

activities previously known in the industry. See id. at 

613–14. The components were described in “vague, 

functional” terms that were insufficient to confer eligibility and failed to provide the requisite details to implement 

the claimed abstract idea. Id. at 615.

The ineligible claims in the preceding cases6 may be 

contrasted with eligible claims in other cases. For example, in DDR Holdings, the court found that the asserted 

claims did not recite a step or function performed by a 

computerized mathematical algorithm but were instead 

focused on a challenge particular to the Internet. DDR 

Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257. The representative claim 

recited:

A system useful in an outsource provider serving 

web pages offering commercial opportunities, the 

system comprising:

 

6 For additional examples of ineligible claims postAlice, see, e.g., FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, 

Inc., No. 15-1985, 2016 WL 5899185 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 11, 

2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., No. 

15-1769, 2016 WL 5539870 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 30, 2016); 

Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, No. 15-1845, 

2016 WL 5335501 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23, 2016); Affinity Labs 

of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 15-2080, 2016 WL 

5335502 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23, 2016); Electric Power Group, 

830 F.3d 1350.

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 16 Filed: 11/01/2016
AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 17

(a) a computer store containing data, for each of a 

plurality of first web pages, defining a plurality of 

visually perceptible elements, which visually perceptible elements correspond to the plurality of 

first web pages;

(i) wherein each of the first web pages belongs to 

one of a plurality of web page owners;

(ii) wherein each of the first web pages displays at 

least one active link associated with a commerce 

object associated with a buying opportunity of a 

selected one of a plurality of merchants; and

(iii) wherein the selected merchant, the out-source 

provider, and the owner of the first web page displaying the associated link are each third parties 

with respect to one other;

(b) a computer server at the outsource provider, 

which computer server is coupled to the computer 

store and programmed to:

(i) receive from the web browser of a computer user a signal indicating activation of one of the links 

displayed by one of the first web pages;

(ii) automatically identify as the source page the 

one of the first web pages on which the link has 

been activated;

(iii) in response to identification of the source 

page, automatically retrieve the stored data corresponding to the source page; and

(iv) using the data retrieved, automatically generate and transmit to the web browser a second web 

page that displays: (A) information associated 

with the commerce object associated with the link 

that has been activated, and (B) the plurality of 

visually perceptible elements visually corresponding to the source page.

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 17 Filed: 11/01/2016
18 AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 

Id. at 1249–50. 

The court observed that the “claimed solution [was] 

necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to 

overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of 

computer networks.” Id. at 1257. Analyzing the claims 

under step two, the court noted when the claim limitations were taken together as an ordered combination, they 

recited an invention that was not merely “the routine or 

conventional use of the Internet.” Id. at 1259.

More recently, in BASCOM, the court examined several claims including the following claim:

1. A content filtering system for filtering content 

retrieved from an Internet computer network by 

individual controlled access network accounts, 

said filtering system comprising:

a local client computer generating network access 

requests for said individual controlled access network accounts;

at least one filtering scheme;

a plurality of sets of logical filtering elements; and

a remote ISP server coupled to said client computer and said Internet computer network, said ISP 

server associating each said network account to at 

least one filtering scheme and at least one set of 

filtering elements, said ISP server further receiving said network access requests from said client 

computer and executing said associated filtering 

scheme utilizing said associated set of logical filtering elements.

BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1345. 

In BASCOM, the court found that the claims were directed to an abstract idea under step one. Id. at 1347–49. 

Under step two, the court construed the claims in favor of 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 18 Filed: 11/01/2016
AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 19

the non-movant and found that the limitations of the 

claims, taken individually, recited generic computer, 

network, and Internet components which were not inventive by themselves. Id. at 1349–52. However, the 

court found that the ordered combination of these limitations provided the requisite inventive concept. Id. The 

claimed and described inventive concept was the “installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from 

the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific 

to each end user.” Id. at 1350. This design permitted the 

filtering tool to have “both the benefits of a filter on a local 

computer and the benefits of a filter on the [Internet 

Service Provider] server.” Id. This was not conventional 

or generic, and the claims did not preempt all ways of 

filtering content on the Internet—instead, the patent 

claimed and explained how a particular arrangement of 

elements was “a technical improvement over prior art 

ways of filtering such content.” Id. The court thus distinguished ineligible “abstract-idea-based solutions[s] implemented with generic technical components in a 

conventional way” from the eligible “technology-based 

solution” and “‘software-based invention[ ] that improve[s] 

the performance of the computer system itself.’” Id. at 

1351 (citation omitted). The court therefore vacated the 

district court’s dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).7

4. 

With this background in mind, we turn to an examination of the claims in the patents at issue to determine 

whether the trial court was correct in ruling them all to 

be invalid under § 101. In addition to taking into consid-

 

7 For additional examples of eligible claims postAlice, see McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America

Inc., No. 15-1080, 2016 WL 4896481 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 

2016); Enfish, 822 F.3d 1327.

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 19 Filed: 11/01/2016
20 AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 

eration the approved claim constructions, we examine the 

claims in light of the written description. See, e.g., Enfish, 

822 F.3d at 1335 (applying step one involves considering 

the claims “in light of the specification”); In re TLI 

Commc’ns, 823 F.3d at 611–15 (examining the claims in 

light of the written description under steps one and two).

a. ’065 Patent

Amdocs asserted claims 1, 4, 7, 13, and 17 of the ’065 

patent. Claim 1 is representative:

1. A computer program product embodied on a 

computer readable storage medium for processing 

network accounting information comprising:

computer code for receiving from a first source a 

first network accounting record;

computer code for correlating the first network accounting record with accounting information 

available from a second source; and

computer code for using the accounting information with which the first network accounting

record is correlated to enhance the first network 

accounting record.

’065 patent at 16:4–14.

Under step one, the district court determined that 

this claim was directed to the abstract idea of “correlating 

two network accounting records to enhance the first 

record.” Amdocs, 56 F. Supp. 3d at 820. Under step two, 

the district court found that claim 1 did not add a sufficient ‘inventive concept’ to confer eligibility.

We recognize, as the district court recognized, that 

“[a]t some level, ‘all inventions . . . embody, use, reflect, 

rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or 

abstract ideas.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (quoting Mayo, 

132 S. Ct. at 1293) (emphasis added). What relative level 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 20 Filed: 11/01/2016
AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 21

of abstraction should we employ? From a macroscopic

perspective, claim 1 could be described as focusing on 

correlating two network accounting records to enhance 

the first record. Claim 1 could also be described in several 

other ways—such as focusing on a computer program that 

includes computer code for receiving initial information, 

for correlating that initial information with additional 

information, and for using that additional information to 

enhance the initial information.

We have previously explained that somewhat (at least 

facially) similar claims do not satisfy § 101—under either 

step one or step two. See, e.g., Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1350

(abstract idea of “organizing information through mathematical correlations”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 

1347 (abstract idea of “1) collecting data, 2) recognizing 

certain data within the collected data set, and 3) storing 

that recognized data in a memory”); In re TLI Commc’ns, 

823 F.3d at 613 (abstract idea of “classifying and storing 

digital images in an organized manner”).

In contrast, we have found eligibility when somewhat 

facially-similar claims are directed to an improvement in 

computer functionality under step one, see Enfish, 822 

F.3d at 1335, or recite a sufficient inventive concept under 

step two—particularly when the claims solve a technology-based problem, even with conventional, generic components, combined in an unconventional manner. See

DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1256–59; see also BASCOM, 

827 F.3d at 1349–52. 

In this case, the claims are much closer to those in 

BASCOM and DDR Holdings than those in Digitech, 

Content Extraction, and In re TLI Commc’ns. Indeed, 

even if we were to agree that claim 1 is directed to an 

ineligible abstract idea under step one, the claim is eligible under step two because it contains a sufficient ‘inventive concept.’ Claim 1 requires “computer code for 

using the accounting information with which the first 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 21 Filed: 11/01/2016
22 AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 

network accounting record is correlated to enhance the 

first network accounting record.” ’065 patent at 16:12–14. 

In Amdocs I, we construed “enhance” as being dependent 

upon the invention’s distributed architecture. 761 F.3d at 

1338–40 (quoting ’065 patent at 7:51–57, 10:45–50, 7:7–8). 

We construed “enhance” as meaning “to apply a number 

of field enhancements in a distributed fashion.” Id. at 

1340. We took care to note how the district court explained that “[i]n this context, ‘distributed’ means that 

the network usage records are processed close to their 

sources before being transmitted to a centralized manager.” Id. at 1338. And we specifically approved of the 

district court’s “reading the ‘in a distributed fashion’ and 

the ‘close to the source’ of network information requirements into the term ‘enhance.’” Id. at 1340.

As explained by the patent, this distributed enhancement was a critical advancement over the prior art: 

Importantly, the distributed data gathering, filtering and enhancements performed in the system 

100 enables load distribution. Granular data can 

reside in the peripheries of the system 100, close 

to the information sources. This helps avoids 

[(sic)] reduce congestion in network bottlenecks 

but still allows the data to be accessible from a 

central location. In previous systems, all the network information flows to one location, making it 

very difficult to keep up with the massive record 

flows from the network devices and requiring 

huge databases.

’065 patent at 4:33–42. 

In other words, this claim entails an unconventional

technological solution (enhancing data in a distributed 

fashion) to a technological problem (massive record flows 

which previously required massive databases). The 

solution requires arguably generic components, including 

network devices and “gatherers” which “gather” inforCase: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 22 Filed: 11/01/2016
AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 23

mation. However, the claim’s enhancing limitation necessarily requires that these generic components operate in 

an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in 

computer functionality. 

The enhancing limitation depends not only upon the 

invention’s distributed architecture, but also depends 

upon the network devices and gatherers—even though 

these may be generic—working together in a distributed 

manner. The patent explains that field enhancements are 

defined by network service providers for each field in 

which the network service provider wants to collect data. 

’065 patent at 12:43–47. “A field enhancement specifies 

how the data obtained from the trigger of the enhancement procedure is processed before it is placed in a single 

field in the central database 175.” Id. at 11:2–5.

Typically, data collected from a single source does 

not contain all the information needed for billing 

and accounting, such as user name and organization. In such cases, the data is enhanced. By 

combining IP session data from multiple sources, 

such as authentication servers, DHCP and Domain Name servers, the gatherers create meaningful session records tailored to the [network 

service provider’s] specific requirements.

Id. at 7:51–57. 

The gatherers provide enhancement. Id. at 10:45–48 

(“As mentioned above, the gatherers 220 provide data 

enhancement features to complete information received 

from the ISMs 210.”). The gatherers also operate in a 

distributed fashion, id. at 4:33–42, and the gatherers 

depend upon the ISMs which receive information from 

network devices, id. at 5:10–26. Claim 1 includes the 

enhancing limitation which is individually sufficient for 

eligibility. But this enhancing limitation necessarily 

involves the arguably generic gatherers, network devices, 

and other components working in an unconventional 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 23 Filed: 11/01/2016
24 AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 

distributed fashion to solve a particular technological 

problem.

Claim 1 is therefore distinct from the ineligible claims 

in Digitech, Content Extraction, and In re TLI Commc’ns. 

The claim in Digitech was not tied to any particularized 

structure, broadly preempted related technologies, and 

merely involved combining data in an ordinary manner

without any inventive concept. See 758 F.3d at 1350–51. 

In contrast, claim 1 of the ’065 patent is tied to a specific 

structure of various components (network devices, gatherers, ISMs, a central event manager, a central database, a 

user interface server, and terminals or clients). It is 

narrowly drawn to not preempt any and all generic enhancement of data in a similar system, and does not 

merely combine the components in a generic manner, but 

instead purposefully arranges the components in a distributed architecture to achieve a technological solution to 

a technological problem specific to computer networks. 

See ’065 patent at 4:29–33, 4:43–54, 3:56–65, 4:33–42, 

7:51–57, 10:45–50, 7:7–8, 7:62–67, 11:1–7.

Similarly, claim 1 is distinct from the representative 

claim in Content Extraction, which involved the generic, 

well-known steps of collecting data, recognizing data, and 

storing data. See 776 F.3d at 1347. Unlike the claim in 

Content Extraction, claim 1 of the ’065 patent depends 

upon a specific enhancing limitation that necessarily 

incorporates the invention’s distributed architecture—an 

architecture providing a technological solution to a technological problem. This provides the requisite ‘something 

more’ than the performance of “well-understood, routine, 

[and] conventional activities previously known to the 

industry.” See id. at 1347–48 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 

2359). 

Claim 1 is similar to the claims in DDR Holdings and 

BASCOM. As in DDR Holdings, when the claim limitations were considered individually and as an ordered 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 24 Filed: 11/01/2016
AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 25

combination, they recited an invention that is not merely 

the “routine or conventional use” of technology. 773 F.3d

at 1259. Here, claim 1 solves a technological problem 

(massive data flows requiring huge databases) akin to the 

problem in DDR Holdings (conventional Internet hyperlink protocol preventing websites from retaining visitors). 

Cf. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank 

(USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Claim 1 

involves some arguably conventional components (e.g., 

gatherers), but the claim also involves limitations that 

when considered individually and as an ordered combination recite an inventive concept through the system’s 

distributed architecture.

Claim 1 is also like the claims in BASCOM because 

even though the system in the ’065 patent relies upon 

some arguably generic limitations, when all limitations 

are considered individually and as an ordered combination, they provide an inventive concept through the use of 

distributed architecture. This is similar to the design in 

BASCOM which permitted the invention to have a filtering tool with the benefits of a filter on a local computer 

and the benefits of a filter on an ISP server. The benefits 

in BASCOM were possible because of customizable filtering features at specific locations remote from the user. 

Similarly, the benefits of the ’065 patent’s claim 1 are 

possible because of the distributed, remote enhancement 

that produced an unconventional result—reduced data 

flows and the possibility of smaller databases. This 

arrangement is not so broadly described to cause preemption concerns. Instead, it is narrowly circumscribed to the 

particular system outlined. As in BASCOM, this is a 

technical improvement over prior art technologies and 

served to improve the performance of the system itself.

For all these reasons, and with the understanding 

that claim 1 is representative, we reverse the district 

court’s judgment that claims 1, 4, 7, 13, and 17 of the ’065 

patent are ineligible under § 101. 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 25 Filed: 11/01/2016
26 AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 

b. ’510 Patent

Amdocs asserted claims 16, 17, and 19 of the ’510 patent. Claim 16 is representative:

16. A computer program product stored in a computer readable medium for reporting on a collection of network usage information from a plurality 

of network devices, comprising:

computer code for collecting network communications usage information in real-time from a plurality of network devices at a plurality of layers;

computer code for filtering and aggregating the 

network communications usage information;

computer code for completing a plurality of data 

records from the filtered and aggregated network 

communications usage information, the plurality 

of data records corresponding to network usage by 

a plurality of users;

computer code for storing the plurality of data 

records in a database;

computer code for submitting queries to the database utilizing predetermined reports for retrieving 

information on the collection of the network usage 

information from the network devices; and

computer code for outputting a report based on 

the queries;

wherein resource consumption queries are submitted to the database utilizing the reports for retrieving information on resource consumption in a 

network; and

wherein a resource consumption report is outputted based on the resource consumption queries.

’510 patent at 17:3–29. 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 26 Filed: 11/01/2016
AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 27

This claim is eligible for patenting for reasons similar 

to those that undergirded the eligibility of the ’065 patent

claims. In this instance, the district court concluded 

under step one that claim 16 was directed to an abstract 

idea—“using a database to compile and report on network 

usage information” without any sufficient ‘inventive 

concept’ under step two. Amdocs, 56 F. Supp. 3d at 822–

23. However, contrary to the district court’s analysis, 

even if claim 16 were directed to an abstract idea under 

step one, the claim is eligible under step two.

Claim 16 requires, inter alia, that the network usage 

information is collected in real-time from a plurality of 

network devices at a plurality of layers and is filtered and 

aggregated before being completed into a plurality of data 

records. In Amdocs I, we approved of the district court’s 

construction of “completing” to mean “enhance a record 

until all required fields have been populated,” in which 

“enhance” carried the same meaning as the same term in 

the ’065 patent. 761 F.3d at 1340.

The collection, filtering, aggregating, and completing 

steps all depend upon the invention’s unique distributed 

architecture—the same architecture outlined in our 

earlier analysis of the ’065 patent. An understanding of 

how this is accomplished is only possible through an 

examination of the claims in light of the written description.

The written description explains that the distributed 

architecture allows the system to efficiently and accurately collect network usage information in a manner designed for efficiency to minimize impact on network and 

system resources. This enables load distribution, and 

that is an advantage over the prior art because it makes it 

easier to keep up with record flows and allows for smaller 

databases. ’510 patent at 3:60–65 (“The system is based 

on a modular, distributed, highly scalable architecture 

capable of running on multiple platforms. Data collection 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 27 Filed: 11/01/2016
28 AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 

and management is designed for efficiency to minimize 

impact on the network and system resources. The system 

minimizes network impact by collecting and processing 

data close to its source.”), 4:20–21 (“Distributed filtering 

and aggregation eliminates system capacity bottlenecks.”), 4:35–44 (“Importantly, the distributed data 

gathering, filtering and enhancement performed in the 

system 100 enables load distribution. Granular data can 

reside in the peripheries of the system 100, close to the 

information sources. This helps avoids [(sic)] reduce 

congestion in network bottlenecks but still allows the data 

to be accessible from a central location. In previous 

systems, all the network information flows to one location, 

making it very difficult to keep up with the massive 

record flows from the network devices and requiring huge 

databases.”), 7:8–25 (describing how the gatherers act as 

a distributed filtering and aggregation system and how 

this improves scalability and efficiency of the system by 

reducing the volume of data sent to the CEM). 

With this understanding, it is clear that even if claim 

16 were viewed as being directed to an abstract idea

under step one—rather than to an improvement in computer functionality—claim 16 satisfies step two. The 

collection, filtering, aggregating, and completing (including enhancing) steps all depend upon the system’s unconventional distributed architecture. While some individual 

limitations arguably may be generic, others are unconventional and the ordered combination of these limitations yields an inventive concept sufficient to confer 

eligibility without undue preemption. The claim recites a 

technological solution to a technological problem specific 

to computer networks—an unconventional solution that 

was an improvement over the prior art. The claim is 

therefore more similar to the eligible claims in DDR 

Holdings and BASCOM than the ineligible claims in 

Digitech, Content Extraction, and In re TLI Commc’ns. 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 28 Filed: 11/01/2016
AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 29

For those reasons, and with the understanding that 

claim 16 is representative, we reverse the district court’s 

judgment that claims 16, 17, and 19 of the ’510 patent are 

ineligible under § 101. 

c. ’984 Patent

Amdocs alleged infringement of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 

13 of the ’984 patent. Claim 1 is representative: 

1. A method for reporting on the collection of 

network usage information from a plurality of 

network devices, comprising: 

(a) collecting network communications usage information in real-time from a plurality of network 

devices at a plurality of layers utilizing multiple 

gatherers each including a plurality of information source modules each interfacing with one 

of the network devices and capable of communicating using a protocol specific to the network device coupled thereto, the network devices selected 

from the group consisting of routers, switches, 

firewalls, authentication servers, web hosts, proxy 

servers, netflow servers, databases, mail servers, 

RADIUS servers, and domain name servers, the 

gatherers being positioned on a segment of the 

network on which the network devices coupled 

thereto are positioned for minimizing an impact of 

the gatherers on the network; 

(b) filtering and aggregating the network communications usage information; 

(c) completing a plurality of data records from the 

filtered and aggregated network communications 

usage information, the plurality of data records 

corresponding to network usage by a plurality of 

users; 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 29 Filed: 11/01/2016
30 AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 

(d) storing the plurality of data records in a database; 

(e) allowing the selection of one of a plurality of 

reports for reporting purposes; 

(f) submitting queries to the database utilizing the 

selected reports for retrieving information on the 

collection of the network usage information from 

the network devices; and 

(g) outputting a report based on the queries. 

’984 patent at 15:31–63. 

Claim 1 is eligible for patenting for reasons similar to 

those already discussed with respect to the ’065 and ’510 

patents. The district court concluded that claim 1 was 

directed to the abstract idea of “reporting on the collection 

of network usage information from a plurality of network 

devices” under step one and did not satisfy step two. 

Amdocs, 56 F. Supp. 3d at 824–25. However, even if we 

were to accept the district court’s conclusion regarding 

step one, the claim is eligible under step two.

Claim 1 requires the completion of a plurality of data 

records in a manner that depends upon enhancement—

which depends upon the system’s distributed architecture, 

as explained previously. Similarly, claim 1 requires 

collecting, filtering, and aggregating information in a 

manner that also depends upon the system’s distributed 

architecture. Claim 1 is therefore eligible for the same 

reasons that supported eligibility with respect to claim 16 

of the ’510 patent. The written description in both patents describes the collection, filtering, and aggregation in 

terms of the invention’s distributed architecture. See, e.g., 

’984 patent at 3:28–32, 3:56–57, 4:3–13, 6:45–54. Although some of the components and functions may appear 

generic, several limitations are individually unconventional (e.g., completing depends upon distributed enhancing) and the overall ordered combination of all of the 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 30 Filed: 11/01/2016
AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 31

limitations was unconventional. It produced the advantage over the prior art by solving the technological 

problem at stake. 

For those reasons, and with the understanding that 

claim 1 is representative, we reverse the district court’s 

judgment that claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 13 of the ’984 patent 

are ineligible under § 101. 

d. ’797 Patent

Amdocs alleged infringement of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 

19 of the ’797 patent. Claim 1 is representative:

1. A method for generating a single record reflecting multiple services for accounting purposes, 

comprising:

(a) identifying a plurality of services carried out 

over a network;

(b) collecting data describing the plurality of services; and

(c) generating a single record including the collected data, wherein the single record represents 

each of the plurality of services;

wherein the services include at least two services 

selected from a group consisting of a hypertext 

transfer protocol (HTTP) session, an electronic 

mail session, a multimedia streaming session, a 

voice over Internet Protocol (IP) session, a data 

communication session, an instant messaging session, a peer-to-peer network application session, a 

file transfer protocol (FTP) session, and a telnet 

session;

wherein the data is collected utilizing an enhancement procedure defined utilizing a graphical

user interface by:

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 31 Filed: 11/01/2016
32 AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 

listing a plurality of available functions to be applied in real-time prior to end-user reporting,

allowing a user to choose at least one of a plurality of fields, and

allowing the user to choose at least one of the 

listed functions to be applied to the chosen field in 

real-time prior to the end-user reporting.

’797 patent at 16:30–37 and ’797 Certificate of Correction.

Here again claim 1 is eligible for patenting for reasons 

similar to those discussed with respect to the claims in 

the ’065, ’510, and ’984 patents. The district court found 

that claim 1 was directed to the abstract idea of “generat[ing] a single record reflecting multiple services” 

under step one, without a sufficient ‘inventive concept’ 

under step two. See Amdocs, 56 F. Supp. 3d at 823–24. 

However, as with the other patents, even if we were to 

accept the district court’s step one conclusion, the claim is 

eligible under step two.

As with the other patents, the collecting, generating, 

and enhancement procedure required by claim 1 all 

depend upon the system’s distributed architecture. 

Regarding collection, see, e.g., ’797 patent at 5:39–45

(“The system is based on a modular, distributed, highly 

scalable architecture capable of running on multiple 

platforms. Data collection and management is designed 

for efficiency to minimize impact on the network and 

system resources. The system minimizes network impact 

by collecting and processing data close to its source.”).

Regarding generating, we specifically construed the 

language “single record represents each of the plurality of 

services” as “one record that includes customer usage data 

for each of the plurality of services used by the customer 

on the network” such that the language allowed for the 

inclusion of a plurality of services by aggregation. 

Amdocs I, 761 F.3d at 1340–41. Aggregation depends 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 32 Filed: 11/01/2016
AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 33

upon the invention’s distributed architecture. See, e.g., 

’797 patent at 6:1–2 (“Distributed filtering and aggregation eliminates system capacity bottlenecks.”), 8:64–67 

(“The distributed data filtering and aggregation eliminates capacity bottlenecks improving the scalability and 

efficiency of the system 800 by reducing the volume of 

data sent on the network to the CEM 870.”), 9:1–4 (“Aggregation can be done by accumulating groups of data 

record flows, generating a single data record for each 

group. That single record then includes the aggregated 

information. This reduces the flow of the data records.”), 

9:36–40 (“The filtering and aggregation reduces the 

amount of data that is stored in the central database 875 

while not jeopardizing the granularity of data that is 

necessary in order to create creative usage-based products.”). 

Finally, enhancement procedures are described in 

terms of enhancement. See, e.g., id. at 9:41–61 (describing enhancement procedures in the context of enhancements). Enhancement in the ’797 patent, as in every 

other patent at issue, depends upon the distributed nature of the system. See, e.g., id. at 6:16–26 (“Importantly, 

the distributed data gathering, filtering and enhancements performed in the system 800 enables load distribution. Granular data can reside in the peripheries of the 

system 800, close to the information sources. This helps 

avoids [(sic)] reduce congestion in network bottlenecks but 

still allows the data to be accessible from a central location. In previous systems, all the network information 

flows to one location, making it very difficult to keep up 

with the massive record flows from the network devices 

and requiring huge databases.”).

Similar to the other examined claims in the patents at 

issue, representative claim 1 recites a series of limitations 

that, when considered individually and as an ordered 

combination, provide an inventive concept sufficient to 

confer eligibility. While the components and functionality 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 33 Filed: 11/01/2016
34 AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 

necessarily involved in the ’797 patent (e.g., ISMs, gatherers, network devices, collection, aggregation, and enhancement) may be generic at first blush, an examination 

of the claim in light of the written description reveals that 

many of these components and functionalities are in fact 

neither generic nor conventional individually or in ordered combination. Instead, they describe a specific, 

unconventional technological solution, narrowly drawn to 

withstand preemption concerns, to a technological problem. 

For those reasons, and with the understanding that 

claim 1 is representative, we reverse the district court’s 

judgment that claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 19 of the ’797 patent 

are ineligible under § 101. 

SUMMARY

The dissent criticizes the majority for “avoid[ing] determining whether the asserted claims are directed to an 

abstract idea, or even identifying what the underlying 

abstract idea is.” Dissent at 2. In fact, with regard to 

each of the challenged patents we identified the abstract 

idea that the district court found to be disqualifying. For 

argument’s sake we accepted the district court’s view of 

the disqualifying abstract ideas, and in each instance we 

then explained why, in our view, the claims seen in their 

entirety are not disqualified. The Alice/Mayo framework 

does not require more.

The dissent concedes that the written description discloses a network monitoring system “eligible for patenting. The specifications disclose a distributed system 

architecture comprising special-purpose components 

configured to cooperate with one another according to 

defined protocols . . . . The disclosed system is patent 

eligible.” Dissent at 12. We agree. Unlike the dissent, 

however, we find the claims at issue, understood in light 

of that written description, to be eligible for patenting. To 

be clear: ruling these claims to be patent-eligible does not 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 34 Filed: 11/01/2016
AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 35

mean that they are valid; they have yet to be tested under 

the statutory conditions for patentability, e.g., §§ 102 

(novelty) and 103 (non-obvious subject matter), and the 

requirements of § 112 (written description and enablement), issues raised in Openet’s defensive pleadings. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s judgment 

that the claims at issue in the ’065, ’510, ’984, and ’797

patents are invalid under § 101 of the Patent Act. 

We remand for the trial court to undertake further

proceedings as called for by the issues as yet unaddressed, 

and such other proceedings as the court may deem appropriate.

REVERSED AND REMANDED

No costs.

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 35 Filed: 11/01/2016
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

OPENET TELECOM, INC., 

OPENET TELECOM LTD.,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2015-1180

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Virginia in No. 1:10-cv-00910-LMBTRJ, Judge Leonie M. Brinkema.

______________________ 

REYNA, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

The majority finds that the claims of all four asserted 

patents are directed to eligible subject matter. To make 

its determination, the majority undertakes “to examine 

earlier cases in which a parallel descriptive nature can be 

seen—what prior cases were about and which way they 

were decided.” Majority Op. at 9−10. In application, the 

majority’s approach involves the mechanical comparison 

of the asserted claims in this case to the claims at issue in 

some, but not all, of the cases where we have addressed 

patent eligibility after the Supreme Court’s decision in 

Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 

(2014). 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 36 Filed: 11/01/2016
2 AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 

The majority avoids determining whether the asserted claims are directed to an abstract idea, or even identifying what the underlying abstract idea is. I believe that

approach to section 101 is contrary to the Supreme 

Court’s direction in Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (“First, we 

determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one 

of those patent-ineligible concepts.”). Declining to engage 

in the step 1 inquiry also ignores and undermines this 

court’s holdings in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 

F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco 

Games Am Inc., No. 2015-1080, 2016 WL4896481 (Fed. 

Cir. Sept. 13, 2016), Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, No. 2015-1845, 2016 WL 5335501 (Fed. Cir. 

Sept. 23, 2016), and Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 2015-2080, 2016 WL 5335502 (Fed. Cir. 

Sept. 23, 2016). 

The majority also relies on the specification to import 

innovative limitations into the claims at issue. For each 

of the four patents at issue, the majority’s eligibility 

determination rests on the use of a “distribution architecture.” As explained below, however, this limitation is 

insufficient to satisfy Alice step two. Indeed, that limitation does not exist in all of the claims at issue. This 

contravenes the fundamental principal that the section

101 inquiry is about whether the claims are directed to a 

patent-eligible invention, not whether the specification is 

so directed. See Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 

No. 2015-1599 *20−21 (Oct. 17, 2016) (“The § 101 inquiry 

must focus on the language of the Asserted Claims themselves. . . . complex details from the specification cannot 

save a claim directed to an abstract idea that recites 

generic computer parts.”) (citing Accenture Global Servs., 

GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 

(Fed. Cir. 2013)).

Because I do not agree that the ’065 and ’797 patents 

are § 101 eligible, nor with the basis expressed by the 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 37 Filed: 11/01/2016
AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 3

majority for finding all four patents subject matter eligible under § 101, I dissent. 

BACKGROUND

The patents-in-suit disclose a system for monitoring

activity on computer networks and for creating accounting 

records reflecting the activity.1 The system gathers raw 

activity data from various devices on the network (e.g., 

“routers, switches, firewalls, authentication servers, 

LDAP, Web hosts, DNS, and other devices”), and it uses 

that raw activity data to derive the desired accounting 

records. ’984 patent at col. 2 l. 65−col. 3 l. 11. In certain 

embodiments, the system stores the records in a central 

database, which the network provider can use, for example, for purposes such as billing, operational support, 

fraud detection, network monitoring, traffic engineering, 

and the like. Id. at col. 3 ll. 20−27, col. 8 l.40−col. 9 l. 41; 

’797 patent at col. 3−16-20. 

Rather than storing all the raw data in a central database, as in prior art systems, the disclosed system uses

a distributed architecture to process the raw data in 

parallel, closer to the points of collection. The system 

associates a distinct Information Source Module (“ISM”) 

with each network device that records relevant activity 

data. Id. at col. 5 ll. 3–17. The network devices include

any devices in the network. Id. at col. 4 ll. 49–50. The 

ISMs are software components that “represent modular, 

abstract interfaces that are designed to be platform 

neutral.” Id. at col. 5 ll. 6–8. 

 

1 All the patents are descendant from U.S. Pat. No. 

6,418,467 and they share its common specification, with 

some variation not relevant here. The ’797 patent is a 

continuation-in-part that contains additional disclosure 

concerning the content of the accounting records. See ’797 

patent at col. 2 l. 33–col. 6 l. 9.

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 38 Filed: 11/01/2016
4 AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 

Each ISM collects data from the associated network 

device and passes the data to a respective “gatherer” 

component. Id. at col. 5 ll. 10–11. The gatherer component “can be any hardware and/or software,” for gathering 

data from the ISMs and cooperating with other components to process the data to form the desired records. Id.

at col. 6 ll. 25–31. To reduce the additional network 

traffic created by the monitoring, each gatherer is preferably placed logically or physically near the network 

devices from which it collects information. Id. at col. 6 ll. 

32–35.

To derive the values necessary to create the desired 

accounting records, a gatherer may manipulate the raw 

data it receives from the ISM by filtering, aggregating, 

and/or “enhancing” the data. Id. at col. 6 ll. 25–col. 7 ll. 

50, col. 10 ll. 13–col. 11 ll. 35. “Enhancing” includes 

“applying zero or more functions” to a value before storing 

the resulting value in a field of the record. Id. at col. 10 ll. 

63–65. For instance, simply placing a raw value in the 

record is referred to as “one-step field enhancement.” Id.

at col. 10 ll. 66–67. In contrast, using the raw value to 

query another ISM for the value to place in the record is 

an example of “two-step field enhancement.” Id. at col. 11

ll. 3–7. A gatherer may “enhance” the data through any 

number of steps. 

A Central Event Manager (“CEM”) provides centralized control and management of the system. Id. at col. 7 

ll. 51–col. 8 ll. 39. The CEM provides a graphical user 

interface for system administrators to query the central 

database or to configure the system. Id. at col. 9 ll. 42–60. 

For example, administrators can use the user interface to 

define enhancement procedures for implementation by the 

gatherers and ISMs. Id. at col. 11 ll. 36–col. 13 ll. 30.

The patents explain that because the disclosed system 

distributes the work of collecting and processing the raw 

activity data among multiple components, it is able to 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 39 Filed: 11/01/2016
AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 5

process more information more quickly than do previous 

designs, in which “all the [raw] network information flows 

to one location.” Id. at col. 4 ll. 9–13. In contrast to these 

previous designs, the distributed architecture reduces the 

storage and computational resource requirements of the 

central repository, which need no longer “keep up with the 

massive record flows from the network devices” or maintain “huge databases.” Id. at col. 4 ll. 7–13. Moreover, 

the distributed architecture reduces network traffic 

overhead “by reducing the volume of data sent on the 

network to the CEM.” Id. at col. 6 ll. 49–50. The end 

result is a system that can monitor, process, and create 

database records reflecting network activity at large 

scale.

Network operators can use the ultimate records to get 

an accurate and dependable picture of network usage. 

The operators can use this information for any number of 

purposes, such as setting the right price for network 

services, implementing usage-based charging models, 

deploying new services based on usage trends, planning

network resource provisioning, and usage auditing. Id. at 

col. 2 l. 65−col. 3 l. 27.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

The Supreme Court has outlined a two-step framework for analyzing whether a claim is eligible. See Alice, 

134 S. Ct. at 2355. First, we determine whether the claim 

at issue is directed to a judicial exception, such as an 

abstract idea. Id. If so, we next consider all the claim 

elements in combination to determine whether they recite 

an inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the patent 

in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent 

upon the ineligible concept itself. Id. As this Court 

recently explained, this two-step formulation contemplates that step one is meaningful, and that a substantial 

class of claims are not directed to patent ineligible conCase: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 40 Filed: 11/01/2016
6 AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 

cepts. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335; see also McRO, 2016 WL 

4896481 at *7−10. 

The Alice framework leaves open at least three questions: (1) what makes an idea “abstract”; (2) what it 

means for a claim to be “directed to” an abstract idea; and 

(3) what limitations provide an “inventive concept?” To 

answer these questions we first look to the foundational

principles of the abstract idea exception. 

For well over a century, the Supreme Court has repeatedly and consistently used the abstract idea exception 

to prevent patenting a result where “it matters not by 

what process or machinery the result is accomplished.” 

O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854). The Court has 

explained that a patent may issue “for the means or 

method of producing a certain result, or effect, and not for 

the result or effect produced.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 

175, 182 n.7 (1981). “A patent is not good for an effect, or 

the result of a certain process” because such patents 

“would prohibit all other persons from making the same 

thing by any means whatsoever.” Le Roy v. Tatham, 55 

U.S. 156, 175 (1853). 

Hence, the abstract idea exception must be applied in 

a way that reserves patent protection for means rather 

than for ends and thus maintains the incentive of “some 

future inventor, in the onward march of science” to discover new ways of achieving the same result more cheaply 

and efficiently than has the patentee. Morse, 56 U.S. at 

113; see also Dolbear v. Am. Bell Tel. Co., 126 U.S. 1, 533 

(1888) (“Other inventors may compete with him for the 

ways of giving effect to the discovery.”). This basis of the 

abstract idea exception runs clear through the Supreme 

Court’s jurisprudence from the nineteenth century to the 

present day.

Based on the Supreme Court’s use of the abstract idea 

exception, it is apparent that a desired goal (i.e., a “result 

or effect”), absent structural or procedural means for 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 41 Filed: 11/01/2016
AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 7

achieving that goal, is an abstract idea. Not every abstract idea is naturally phrased as a goal, and indeed, the 

Supreme Court has treated somewhat disparate ideas, 

such a “mathematical formula,” Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 

U.S. 63, 71 (1972), and a “fundamental economic practice,” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010), under the 

abstract idea rubric. Nevertheless, long-standing Supreme Court precedent clearly establishes that a desired 

goal without means for achieving that goal is an abstract 

idea. With this in mind, I turn back to the first step of the 

eligibility inquiry.

Step one of the eligibility inquiry asks whether the 

claim is “directed to” a judicial exception, such as an 

abstract idea. The answer is not automatically “yes” 

simply because a claim involves an abstract idea, and it is 

not automatically “no” simply because a claim recites 

limitations beyond the abstract idea. See McRO, 2016 WL 

4896481 at *7. The Supreme Court has recognized that

“[a]t some level, all inventions embody, use, reflect, rest 

upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or 

abstract ideas.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (internal quotation marks and ellipses omitted). Unless step one is a 

nullity, the phrase “directed to” must therefore mean 

more than merely “embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or 

apply.” At the same time, the phrase “directed to” must 

apply even where the claim does not wholly pre-empt the 

abstract idea. For example, it is well settled that the 

prohibition against patenting abstract ideas cannot be 

circumvented by limiting the use of the idea to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant 

extra-solution activity. Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610–11. Consequently, the step one inquiry cannot be settled in the 

affirmative by the observation of an underlying abstract 

idea nor in the negative by recitation of just any additional limitations.

Rather, the step one inquiry is a legal analysis that 

must focus on determining “what type of discovery is 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 42 Filed: 11/01/2016
8 AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 

sought to be patented.” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 593 

(1978). For example, a claim is “directed to” an abstract 

goal if the claim fails to describe how—whether by particular process or structure—the goal is accomplished.2 

Even if the claim recites additional limitations, the claim 

is nevertheless directed to the underlying goal if those 

limitations fail to restrict how the goal is accomplished. 

Conversely, where the claim recites specific structure or 

function for accomplishing the desired goal in a particular 

way, the claim is more likely directed to a means than to 

the underlying abstract goal. 3 See McRO, 2016 WL 

48956481, at *8. In those cases, concerns of patent eligibility are resolved at step one, and there is no need to 

proceed to step two. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1339. 

Post-Alice, we have only twice held that a patent was 

eligible under § 101 based on a determination during step 

one that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea. 

In Enfish, we held that the claims at issue were directed 

 

2 The same concern applies regardless of how narrow the goal. See Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1302 (holding that 

even “narrow laws that may have limited applications” 

“nonetheless implicate this concern” of pre-emption); 

buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. 

Cir. 2014) (“exclusion applies if a claim involves a natural 

law or phenomenon or abstract idea, even if the particular 

natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea at issue is 

narrow”).

3 The terms “means” and “function,” as used here, 

are not to be strictly understood in the context of “means 

plus function” claiming under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). When 

considering whether a claim is directed to an abstract 

idea or is limited to a means of achieving an underlying 

abstract goal, we necessarily take into consideration 

whether the claim includes means-plus-function limitations. 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 43 Filed: 11/01/2016
AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 9

to “a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in 

the software arts” designed to “improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory,” as opposed to 

an abstract idea implemented with general-purpose 

computer components. Id. In McRO, we held that the 

claims at issue were eligible under Alice step one because 

they were directed to “a specific asserted improvement in 

computer animation, i.e., the automatic use of rules of a 

particular type.” McRO, 2016 WL 4896481 at *8. The 

scarcity of cases resolved under step one should not be 

interpreted as an indication that step one creates a particularly high bar. 

The inquiry moves to the careful limitation-bylimitation analysis of step two, where there is a credible 

concern that the additional limitations fail to direct the 

claim to an eligible invention—e.g., a particular means for 

accomplishing an underlying goal—or to otherwise obviate concerns of pre-emption. The purpose of the step-two 

analysis is to ensure that the claim recites an “inventive 

concept,” which the Supreme Court has defined as “an 

element or combination of elements that is sufficient to 

ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” 

Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. 

To be clear, the concept of inventiveness is distinct 

from that of novelty. Novelty is the question of whether 

the claimed invention is new. Inventiveness is the question of whether the claimed matter is invention at all, new 

or otherwise. The inventiveness inquiry of § 101 should 

therefore not be confused with the separate novelty inquiry of § 102 or the obviousness inquiry of § 103. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has cautioned that “[t]he 

obligation to determine what type of discovery is sought to 

be patented must precede the determination of whether 

that discovery is, in fact, new or obvious.” Flook, 437 U.S. 

at 593. 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 44 Filed: 11/01/2016
10 AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 

Claims that fail to recite how a desired goal is accomplished do not recite an inventive concept. For example, 

limitations on the context—as opposed to the manner—of 

accomplishing a desired result is typically not inventive, 

even if that context is novel. The Pythagorean Theorem 

cannot be made eligible by confining its use to existing 

surveying techniques, Flook, 437 U.S. at 590, nor can the 

business practice of hedging risk be patented by confining 

its use to the commodities and energy markets, Bilski, 

561 U.S. at 612, nor the goal of “gathering and combining 

data” by confining its use to particular types of photographic information, Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. 

Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. 

Cir. 2014). Even though such field-of-use limitations 

prevent a claim from wholly pre-empting an abstract idea, 

they are not inventive because they describe only the 

context rather than the manner of achieving a result. For 

similar reasons, limitations that recite only insignificant 

extra-solution activity also cannot supply an inventive 

concept because extra-solution activity, by definition, 

describes activity unrelated to how the solution is 

achieved. See Flook, 437 U.S. at 590; see also Mayo, 132 

S. Ct. at 1300. It is therefore well established that “limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token 

postsolution components [does] not make the concept 

patentable.” Bilski, 561 U.S. at 612. 

Illusory limitations, which describe only procedure or 

structure common to every means of accomplishing a 

given result, also cannot provide an inventive concept. 

Put another way, limitations that simply “comprise the 

abstract concept” are not inventive. See Ultramercial Inc. 

v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014). For 

example, a claim cannot become eligible by reciting that 

physical automation is accomplished by a “machine” or 

that logical automation is accomplished by a “computer,” 

see OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 

1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), because physical automation 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 45 Filed: 11/01/2016
AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 11

requires a machine and logical automation requires a 

computer. Because such elements cannot restrict a claim 

to a particular way of automating, recitation of a machine 

or computer “to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” 

CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. 

Cir. 2013). 

Post-Alice, we have only once found that a claim’s additional limitations provide an inventive concept. See

DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245

(Fed. Cir. 2014).4 In DDR, we held that “a specific way to 

automate the creation of a composite web page” was 

patent eligible even though the underlying abstract idea 

of “increasing sales by making two web pages look the 

same” was not. DDR, 773 F.3d at 1259 (emphasis added). 

In doing so, we distinguished our precedent on the basis 

that the DDR claims “do not broadly and generically 

claim ‘use of the Internet’” to achieve the desired result, 

but instead “specify how interactions with the Internet 

are manipulated to yield a desired result.” Id. at 1258. 

We cautioned that “not all claims purporting to address 

[technological] challenges are eligible for patent.” Id. 

Instead, only claims specifying how to overcome those 

technological challenges are eligible.

In summary, the eligibility inquiry requires us to first 

determine whether the claim is “directed to” an abstract 

 

4 In one recent case, we found that a patentee made 

allegations of an inventive step that, when unrebutted, 

were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss for ineligibility under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Bascom Global 

Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 

1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Of course, the alleged infringer may yet prevail in invalidating the patent under 

section 101. 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 46 Filed: 11/01/2016
12 AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 

idea (such as a result) rather than to an application (such 

as a particular means of accomplishing that result). If the 

claim is clearly directed to an application, the inquiry 

may end. If doubt remains, the inquiry moves to step two, 

where we carefully consider all the implementation details to determine whether they define an inventive 

concept. The case law has identified several types of 

limitations that frequently fail to provide an inventive 

concept, including illusory limitations (e.g., generic computer implementation) and contextual limitations (e.g., 

field of use, extra-solution activity). The step-two inquiry 

is a flexible and fact-specific one focused on whether the 

claims unduly foreclose future innovation. 

DISCUSSION

If I were to examine only the written description of 

the asserted patents, I would conclude that the network 

monitoring system disclosed therein is eligible for patenting. The specifications disclose a distributed system 

architecture comprising special-purpose components 

configured to cooperate with one another according to

defined protocols in a user-configurable manner for the 

purpose of deriving useful accounting records in a more 

scalable and efficient manner than previously possible. 

The disclosed system improves upon prior art systems by 

creating a specific “distributed filtering and aggregation 

system . . . [that] eliminates capacity bottlenecks” through 

distributed processing. ’984 patent at col. 6 ll. 45–50. The 

disclosed system is patent eligible. 

But the inquiry is not whether the specifications disclose a patent-eligible system, but whether the claims are 

directed to a patent ineligible concept. See Synopsys, 

2016 WL 6068920, at *8) (“The § 101 inquiry must focus 

on the language of the Asserted Claims themselves. . . . 

complex details from the specification cannot save a claim 

directed to an abstract idea that recites generic computer 

parts.”) (citing Accenture, 728 F.3d at 1345); Alice, 134 S. 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 47 Filed: 11/01/2016
AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 13

Ct. at 2355 (“First, we determine whether the claims at 

issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.”); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 189 (1981) (“In 

determining the eligibility of respondents’ claimed process 

. . . , their claims must be considered as a whole.”); McRO, 

2016 WL 4896481 (“If the claims are “directed to” an 

abstract idea, then the inquiry proceeds to the second step

. . . . In step two we consider whether the claims contain 

an ‘inventive concept’ . . . . To do so we look to both the 

claim as a whole and the individual claim elements. . . .”); 

see also McCarty v. Lehigh Valley R.R. Co., 160 U.S. 110, 

116 (1895) (“if we once begin to include elements not 

mentioned in the claim, in order to limit such 

claim . . . , we should never know where to stop”). 

Answering this inquiry requires a court to step 

through each claim to determine whether it is directed to 

an abstract idea, and if so, to determine whether the 

claim recites structural or procedural limitations sufficient to ensure that the claim “amounts to significantly 

more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.” 

Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. 

A. ’065 Patent

Amdocs asserted claims 1, 4, 7, 13, and 17 of the ’065 

patent. Claim 1 is representative: 

1. A computer program product embodied on a 

computer readable storage medium for processing 

network accounting information comprising:

computer code for receiving from a first source a 

first network accounting record;

computer code for correlating the first network accounting record with accounting information 

available from a second source; and

computer code for using the accounting information with which the first network accounting 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 48 Filed: 11/01/2016
14 AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 

record is correlated to enhance the first network

accounting record.

The underlying goal of claim 1 is to combine particular information from two different sources. But the step 

one question is not whether claim 1 involves that abstract 

idea, but whether claim 1 is directed to it. 

Claim 1 recites a software product embodied on a 

storage medium, but it provides no structural limitations

of either the physical medium or the digital software. All 

software products are stored on a physical storage medium, and claim 1 recites no limitations concerning that 

physical structure. Likewise, claim 1 discusses only very 

broad, high-level functionality rather than details about 

how exactly that functionality is implemented, providing 

no information about the structure of the software. That 

the recited information concerns network accounting also 

provides no particular structure. Claim 1 is therefore not 

directed to any specific structure, whether physical or 

digital. 

Rather than reciting structure, claim 1 defines the 

program product using only functional limitations. Looking at those limitations, I find no specific process for 

accomplishing the abstract goal of combining data from 

two sources. The recited software performs three steps: 

(1) receiving information from a first source, (2) correlating the information with information available from a 

second source, and (3) using that available information to 

“enhance” the first information. Under the district court’s

construction, to “enhance” includes simply retrieving and 

recording information in a field. The three steps therefore 

only “comprise the abstract concept” of combining data 

from different sources. Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715. 

Claim 1 is therefore directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, the inquiry continues under step two.

Turning to step two, I see no limitations confining the 

claim to a particular means of combining information 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 49 Filed: 11/01/2016
AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 15

from different sources. Limiting the abstract idea to the 

context in which the information relates to network 

accounting records is a field-of-use limitation that does 

not supply an inventive concept. See Flook, 437 U.S. at 

590. The use of “computer code” to automate logic is 

likewise not an inventive concept because “recitation of 

generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise 

ineligible claim patent-eligible.” DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d 

at 1256. The abstract idea of “gathering and combining 

data” with a computer is ineligible when only limited by 

the type of data. See Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351. The 

concept of gathering and combining data is all that claim 

1 recites.

Amdocs argues that the “enhance” step provides an 

inventive concept because the district court’s construction

of the term “enhance” requires applying zero or more 

functions “in a distributed fashion.” Br. of Appellant at 

59. Amdocs thus renews its argument from the trial 

proceedings that “the asserted claims are patentable, in 

part, due to the manner in which the claims facilitate the 

generation of network accounting records—i.e., ‘in a 

distributed fashion.’” J.A. 1567 (emphasis original). 

But the “distributed fashion” limitation cannot provide an inventive concept because it has no meaning in 

the context of claim 1. Claim 1 only requires adding a 

single piece of information to an accounting record, and it 

is unclear what doing this “in a distributed fashion” could 

mean. Moreover, claim 1 recites no components or structure over which the work might be “distributed.” 

I agree with the district court that claim 1 is ineligible 

because it fails to recite any structure or process limiting

the claim to a particular means of combining accounting 

data from different sources. For that reason, I would 

affirm the district court’s determination that claims 1, 4, 

7, 13, and 17 of the ’065 patent are ineligible. 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 50 Filed: 11/01/2016
16 AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 

B. ’510 Patent

Amdocs asserted claims 16, 17, and 19 of the ’510 patent. Claim 16 is representative:

16. A computer program product stored in a computer readable medium for reporting on a collection of network usage information from a plurality 

of network devices, comprising:

computer code for collecting network communications usage information in real-time from a plurality of network devices at a plurality of layers;

computer code for filtering and aggregating the 

network communications usage information;

computer code for completing a plurality of data 

records from the filtered and aggregated network 

communications usage information, the plurality 

of data records corresponding to network usage by 

a plurality of users;

computer code for storing the plurality of data 

records in a database;

computer code for submitting queries to the database utilizing predetermined reports for retrieving 

information on the collection of the network usage

information from the network devices; and

computer code for outputting a report based on 

the queries;

wherein resource consumption queries are submitted to the database utilizing the reports for retrieving information on resource consumption in a 

network; and

wherein a resource consumption report is outputted based on the resource consumption queries.

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 51 Filed: 11/01/2016
AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 17

In step one, the district court identified the abstract 

idea underlying claim 16 as “using a database to compile 

and report on network usage information.” J.A. 22. I 

agree that this is the goal of the claimed invention. 

Indeed, the claim’s preamble recites that the invention is 

for “reporting on a collection of network usage information.” But again, the step 1 question is not whether 

claim 16 has a goal, but whether claim 16 is directed to 

that goal rather than to a means of achieving that goal.

As discussed above, one way for a claim to be directed 

to a means rather than to an abstract end is to recite 

process limitations defining a specific way of arriving at

that end. See Diehr, 450 U.S. at 182–83 (holding that “a 

process may be patentable, irrespective of the particular 

form of the instrumentalities used”). Such limitations 

may obviate concerns of pre-emption because they leave

room for future inventors to develop new paths to the 

same end without infringing the patent. See Morse, 56 

U.S. at 113. Because § 101 is a “coarse eligibility filter,” 

Research Corp. Technologies v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 

859, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the recited way of accomplishing the goal need not be extensively detailed or even 

complete. Rather, it must meaningfully limit the claim to 

a manner of achieving the desired result without unduly 

foreclosing future innovation. 

Amdocs argues that claim 16 is eligible because it recites procedural limitations, including “filtering and 

aggregating” “in real time . . . at a plurality of layers,” and 

using the filtered and aggregated information to “complete” data records “in a distributed fashion.” Br. of 

Appellant at 52–53. It therefore argues that the claims 

“prescribe a particular inventive manner by which network accounting information is collected, processed, and 

transformed into meaningful records.” Id. at 53–54

(emphasis original). I agree. 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 52 Filed: 11/01/2016
18 AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 

The disclosed invention improves upon the manner in 

which prior art systems collected and processed network 

usage information. Unlike those prior art systems, which 

used centralized processing, the invention improves 

performance by distributing the processing work among 

cooperating components. But the invention cannot be 

merely the idea of distributing the processing—it must 

describe how. The idea of improving performance through 

distributed processing is just an abstract goal because the

benefits of distributed processing can be attained only 

through a specific distributed architecture and protocol. 

The issue here is whether the claims recite enough of that 

distributed architecture or protocol.

Claim 16 captures enough of the distributed protocol 

disclosed in the specification to pass through the coarse 

eligibility filter of § 101. First, claim 16 recites that the 

network information is collected from a specific source—“a 

plurality of network devices at a plurality of layers.” 

Next, claim 16 recites that the distributed system operates on the collected information by applying two specific 

types of functions—filtering and aggregating. Then, 

claim 16 recites that the filtered and aggregated information is further processed by enhancing it “in a distributed fashion.” See Amdocs, 761 F.3d at 1338 (upholding 

the district court’s construction of “completing” as requiring distributed enhancement). Unlike claim 1 of the ’065 

patent, claim 16 of the ’510 patent recites “a plurality of 

network devices” over which the enhancement work may 

be distributed. Taken together, the limitations of claim 

16 capture at least some of the process by which the 

disclosed system collects, processes, and transforms 

network accounting information, in a distributed fashion, 

into usable accounting records.

The district court held that claim 16 “does not add any 

specific implementation beyond the abstract idea that 

information is collected and stored, and reports are generated,” because “[c]ollecting, filtering, aggregating, and 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 53 Filed: 11/01/2016
AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 19

completing network information amounts to ‘electronic 

recordkeeping.’” J.A. 22. I agree that claim 16 embodies 

a method of electronic record keeping, but I disagree that 

the claim is directed to that abstract goal rather than to a 

particular process for achieving it. Simply because computers are frequently called upon to perform operations 

such as “[c]ollecting, filtering, aggregating, and completing,” this does not mean that any claim reciting these 

steps in any order and for any purpose is necessarily 

directed to that abstract concept. We must consider the 

claim as a whole and ask “what type of discovery is sought 

to be patented?” Flook, 437 U.S. at 593 (emphasis added). 

Here, the type of invention is a distributed software 

system that collects and processes network activity in a 

particularly scalable manner. 

Openet argues that the “distributed fashion limitation 

should be given no weight because a “distributed architecture” is “a generic type of architecture.” Br. of Appellee at 

43. However, the claimed invention is not that the work 

is distributed, but how that distributed architecture is 

applied. Even if distributed processing generally was a 

known approach for improving system performance, claim 

16 recites a way of applying distributed processing to the 

problem of activity monitoring, by collecting activity data 

“in real time from a plurality of network devices at a 

plurality of layers,” then filtering and aggregating the 

data, and then using the filtered and aggregated data to 

assemble accounting records using a distributed “enhancement” protocol. To whatever extent this claimed 

approach was old, obvious, too broadly claimed, or unsupported, these considerations are apart from the eligibility 

inquiry and best reserved for other parts of the patentability analysis. 

Like the claims at issue in Enfish and McRO, independent claim 16 and its dependent claims 17 and 19 of 

the ’510 patent are “directed to” a particular process that 

improves upon the manner in which systems collect and 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 54 Filed: 11/01/2016
20 AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 

process network usage information, and the claimed

process is limited in a specific way. As such, the claims 

are patent-eligible under step one of the Alice test, and 

there is no need to consider step two. Id. For that reason, 

I would reverse the district court’s holding to the contrary. 

C. ’984 Patent

Amdocs alleged infringement of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 

13 of the ’984 patent. Claims 1 and 13 are independent, 

and claim 1 is representative: 

1. A method for reporting on the collection of 

network usage information from a plurality of 

network devices, comprising: 

(a) collecting network communications usage information in real-time from a plurality of network 

devices at a plurality of layers utilizing multiple 

gatherers each including a plurality of information source modules each interfacing with one 

of the network devices and capable of communicating using a protocol specific to the network device coupled thereto, the network devices selected 

from the group consisting of routers, switches, 

firewalls, authentication servers, web hosts, proxy 

servers, netflow servers, databases, mail servers, 

RADIUS servers, and domain name servers, the 

gatherers being positioned on a segment of the 

network on which the network devices coupled 

thereto are positioned for minimizing an impact of 

the gatherers on the network; 

(b) filtering and aggregating the network communications usage information; 

(c) completing a plurality of data records from the 

filtered and aggregated network communications 

usage information, the plurality of data records 

corresponding to network usage by a plurality of 

users; 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 55 Filed: 11/01/2016
AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 21

(d) storing the plurality of data records in a database; 

(e) allowing the selection of one of a plurality of 

reports for reporting purposes; 

(f) submitting queries to the database utilizing the 

selected reports for retrieving information on the 

collection of the network usage information from 

the network devices; and 

(g) outputting a report based on the queries.

Claim 1 of the ’984 patent is analogous to claim 16 of the 

’510 patent, except that it adds limitation (a), which 

recites details of the distributed architecture. 

In step one, the district court identified the abstract 

idea underlying claim 1 as “reporting on the collection of 

network usage information from a plurality of network 

devices.” J.A. 27. In step two, the district court found no 

inventive concept because the additional limitations recite 

only that “the genetic computer collects information from 

conventional devices to create records,” using “gatherers, 

which are software,” and then “filtering, completing, 

storing, allowing, submitting, and outputting,” all of 

which are actions that are “conventional for both generic 

computers and generic databases.” J.A. 27. It applied the 

same reasoning to claim 13. Id.

I see no error in the district court’s articulation of the 

underlying abstract idea, which duplicates the preamble 

of claim 1. But again, after identifying the underlying 

idea, a court must still ask whether the claim is directed 

to that idea or to a specific means.

Because claim 1 of the ’984 patent includes the same 

process limitations as the ’510 claims, it is eligible for at 

least the same reasons. It was error for the district court 

to dismiss these process limitations solely on the basis

that “filtering, completing, storing, allowing, submitting, 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 56 Filed: 11/01/2016
22 AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 

and outputting” are “conventional” types of activities for 

computers. Id. If this analysis were sufficient, no software invention could be eligible because every software

invention comprises at most the “conventional” activities 

of receiving, storing, manipulating, and outputting information. These activities are all that computers can do. 

But “a new combination of steps in a process may be 

patentable even though all the constituents of the combination were well known and in common use before the 

combination was made.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 

188. Whether a process is performed by software, hardware, machine, or man, the eligibility requirements are 

identical. The claimed invention must be limited to a 

specific means (i.e., process or structure) for achieving its

underlying purpose. In other words, the claim must be 

limited “by what process or machinery the result is accomplished.” Morse, 56 U.S. at 113. 

It is worth noting that the “process or machinery” by 

which a result is accomplished need not be tangible to be 

patent eligible. Though the Supreme Court’s early Information Age jurisprudence incorporated the Industrial Age 

requirement that eligible inventions must use or manipulate tangible materials,5 the Court’s subsequent case law

has questioned that requirement. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 

605 (“But there are reasons to doubt whether the [machine-or-transformation] test should be the sole criterion 

for determining the patentability of inventions in the 

Information Age.”). A software program is a digital 

 

5 See, e.g., Diehr, 450 U.S. at 183 (“A process is a 

mode of treatment of certain materials”) (quoting 

Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 787–788 (1877)); 

Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972) (“Transformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or 

thing’ is the clue to the patentability of a process claim 

that does not include particular machines.”). 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 57 Filed: 11/01/2016
AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 23

machine. Like a physical machine, a digital machine is 

made of specific parts that interact with one another to 

achieve a specific result in a specific way. A claim to 

either type of machine is eligible only if the claim recites 

structural limitations detailing those specific parts, 

process limitations detailing that specific way, or a combination of the two. Such structure or process may be 

found in the recited components individually as well as in 

their arrangement and interaction with one another as a 

system. But the district court considered neither possibility.

Claim 1 recites a distributed architecture, including 

three types of components (i.e., network devices, gatherers, and ISMs) with given interrelations. The gatherers 

are coupled to the network devices and positioned on the 

same segment of the network as those devices. Moreover, 

each gatherer includes multiple ISMs in a one-to-many 

relationship, and the ISMs interface with respective 

network devices using a protocol specific to that device. 

Because such software structure and process can confer 

eligibility, the district court erred by dismissing the 

recited components on the sole basis that they “are software” without considering whether these architectural 

aspects are inventive structure or process. J.A. 27.

For the forgoing reasons, I would find that claim 1 of 

the ’984 patent and its dependent claims 2, 7, and 8 are

patent eligible. Independent claim 13 is also eligible 

because, as the district court acknowledged, it “is directed 

to essentially the same invention.” J.A. 27. I would

therefore reverse the district court’s holding that claims 1, 

2, 7, 8, and 13 of the ’984 patent are not patent eligible. 

D. ’797 Patent

Amdocs alleged infringement of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 

19 of the ’797 patent. Claims 1, 7, and 19 are independent, and claim 1 is representative:

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 58 Filed: 11/01/2016
24 AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 

1. A method for generating a single record reflecting multiple services for accounting purposes, 

comprising:

(a) identifying a plurality of services carried out 

over a network;

(b) collecting data describing the plurality of services; and

(c) generating a single record including the collected data, wherein the single record represents 

each of the plurality of services;

wherein the services include at least two services 

selected from a group consisting of a hypertext 

transfer protocol (HTTP) session, an electronic 

mail session, a multimedia streaming session, a 

voice over Internet Protocol (IP) session, a data 

communication session, an instant messaging session, a peer-to-peer network application session, a 

file transfer protocol (FTP) session, and a telnet 

session;

wherein the data is collected utilizing an enhancement procedure defined utilizing a graphic 

user interface by:

listing a plurality of available functions to be 

applied in real-time prior to end-user reporting,

allowing a user to choose at least one of a plurality of fields, and

allowing the user to choose at least one of the 

listed functions to be applied to the chosen

field in real-time prior to the end-user reporting. 

In step one, the district court identified the underlying abstract idea as “generat[ing] a single record reflectCase: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 59 Filed: 11/01/2016
AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 25

ing multiple services.” J.A. 24. In step two, the district 

court found that the claim adds “only conventional computer functions operating in a conventional manner,” and 

therefore “amounts to electronic record keeping,” which is 

“one of the most basic functions of a computer.” Id. The 

court found nothing inventive about the “enhancement 

procedure” or about defining that procedure using a 

graphical user interface (“GUI”), which it reasoned is a 

conventional way to interact with a computer. Id. 

I see no error with the district court’s articulation of 

the underlying abstract idea, which tracks the preamble 

of claim 1. I also agree that claim 1 is directed to an

abstract idea rather than to a particular process or structure. Steps (a)–(c) utilize nebulous terms to describe a 

process of “identifying” “services,” collecting data “describing” those services, and generating a “record” that “represents” the services. These three steps merely comprise 

the abstract concept of collecting information about network services, but the goal of “gathering and combining 

data” is not patent-eligible. See Digitech, 758 F.3d at 

1351. 

The next question is whether the two wherein clauses 

redirect the claim to a particular method or structure. 

They do not. The first wherein clause limits the subject of 

the collected data, but it does not define any particular 

process or structure. The second wherein clause recites 

that the data is collected utilizing a distributed enhancement procedure and that the procedure is customized by a 

user’s selection of the fields and functions to apply. Like 

the ’065 claims, claim 1 of the ’797 recites no distributed 

architecture over which the enhancement might be performed. Moreover, the user’s pre-solution configuration

does not clearly redirect the claim to a particular method

of gathering data—at least there is a credible concern 

that it does not. 

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 60 Filed: 11/01/2016
26 AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 

Moving to step two, the central question is whether 

the second wherein clause contains some inventive concept such that claim 1 “amounts to significantly more 

than a patent upon the” idea of collecting information 

about network services. Amdocs argues that the “enhancement procedure” provides this inventive concept 

because it requires combining data from multiple network 

devices. Br. of Appellant at 63–65. But this argument is 

not persuasive because the abstract idea of “gathering 

and combining data” is not patent-eligible, see Digitech, 

758 F.3d at 1351, regardless of the number of sources 

from which the data is gathered. Lastly, Amdocs argues 

that the claims “do not recite the general use of a GUI, 

but also specifically limit how the GUI is used.” Br. of 

Appellant at 65 (emphasis original). I do not agree. The 

limitations of the second wherein clause do not limit how

the GUI is used, but for what purpose. That purpose is to 

allow the user to choose the enhancement functions. 

Nothing in these limitations evinces an inventive way of 

permitting the user to select the functions or otherwise 

customize the enhancement. At best, the user’s presolution customization amounts to insignificant presolution activity. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 612. I see no 

inventive concept in claim 1. 

For the foregoing reasons, I would hold that claim 1 of 

the ’797 patent is ineligible. Claims 2, 7, 8, or 19 are 

likewise ineligible because Amdocs has not argued that 

any of these claims add anything more to claim 1. Accordingly, I would affirm the district court’s determination 

that claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 19 of the ’797 patent are ineligible. 

For these reasons, I dissent.

Case: 15-1180 Document: 57-2 Page: 61 Filed: 11/01/2016