Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01848/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01848-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC
Appellant
MLB Advanced Media, Inc.
Appellee
MLB Advanced Media, L.P.
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

DIRECTV, LLC, DIRECTV DIGITAL LLC, MLB 

ADVANCED MEDIA, INC., MLB ADVANCED 

MEDIA, L.P., NBA MEDIA VENTURES, LLC, 

TURNER DIGITAL BASKETBALL SERVICES, INC., 

NHL INTERACTIVE CYBER ENTERPRISES, LLC, 

NHL ENTERPRISES, INC., NHL ENTERPRISES, 

L.P.,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2015-1845, 2015-1846, 2015-1847, 2015-1848

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Texas in Nos. 6:15-cv-00030-WSS, 

6:15-cv-00031-WSS, 6:15-cv-00032-WSS, 6:15-cv-00033-

WSS, Judge Walter S. Smith, Jr.

______________________ 

Decided: September 23, 2016

______________________ 

 CYRUS ALCORN MORTON, Robins Kaplan LLP, Minneapolis, MN, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by RONALD JAMES SCHUTZ, PATRICK M. ARENZ,

BRENDA L. JOLY, BENJAMEN LINDEN. 

Case: 15-1848 Document: 3-2 Page: 1 Filed: 09/23/2016
2 AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC

DAVID B. WEAVER, Baker Botts, LLP, Austin, TX, argued for all defendants-appellees. Defendants-appellees 

NBA Media Ventures, Turner Digital Basketball Services, 

Inc., NHL Interactive Cyber Enterprises, LLC, NHL 

Enterprises, Inc., NHL Enterprises, L.P. also represented 

by CHRISTOPHER GRANAGHAN; JEFFREY TA-HWA HAN,

Vinson & Elkins LLP, Austin, TX; HILARY L. PRESTON, 

New York, NY.

DARIN W. SNYDER, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, San 

Francisco, CA, for defendants-appellees DIRECTV, LLC, 

DIRECTV Digital LLC.

NATHAN K. CUMMINGS, Cooley LLP, Reston, VA, for 

defendants-appellees MLB Advanced Media, Inc., MLB 

Advanced Media, L.P.

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, BRYSON and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges.

BRYSON, Circuit Judge.

I 

Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC, is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,970,379 (“the ’379 patent”). The patent contains two independent claims, one a system claim and the 

other a method claim. The claims are directed to streaming regional broadcast signals to cellular telephones 

located outside the region served by the regional broadcaster. Representative claim 1 of the ’379 patent, the 

independent system claim, recites as follows: 

1. A broadcast system, comprising:

a network based resource maintaining information associated with a network available representation of a regional broadcasting channel that 

can be selected by a user of a wireless cellular telephone device; and

Case: 15-1848 Document: 3-2 Page: 2 Filed: 09/23/2016
AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC 3

a non-transitory storage medium including an application configured for execution by the wireless 

cellular telephone device that when executed, enables the wireless cellular telephone device:

to present a graphical user interface comprising at least a partial listing of available media 

sources on a display associated with the wireless 

cellular telephone device, wherein the listing includes a selectable item that enables user selection of the regional broadcasting channel;

to transmit a request for the regional broadcasting channel from the wireless cellular telephone device; and

to receive a streaming media signal in the 

wireless cellular telephone device corresponding 

to the regional broadcasting channel, wherein the 

wireless cellular telephone device is outside of a 

broadcast region of the regional broadcasting 

channel, wherein the wireless cellular telephone 

device is configured to receive the application via 

an over the air download.

Stripped of excess verbiage, claim 1 is directed to a 

broadcast system in which a cellular telephone located 

outside the range of a regional broadcaster (1) requests 

and receives network-based content from the broadcaster 

via a streaming signal, (2) is configured to wirelessly 

download an application for performing those functions, 

and (3) contains a display that allows the user to select 

particular content. 1

 

1 Affinity has not separately argued the patentability of any of the other claims of the ’379 patent. Although 

Affinity asserts that the district court erred by conducting 

a “conclusory analysis of the ’379 patent[’s] dependent 

claims,” the parties agreed at the hearing before the 

Case: 15-1848 Document: 3-2 Page: 3 Filed: 09/23/2016
4 AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC

Affinity sued the nine defendants, alleging that they 

infringed the ’379 patent by marketing a system that 

allows customers to receive regional radio broadcasts on 

their cellphones even when their cellphones are outside 

the regions reached by the stations’ broadcast signals. 

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaints for 

failure to state a claim, arguing that the asserted claims 

were not directed to patentable subject matter.

The magistrate judge recommended that the motion 

to dismiss be granted. Following the two-stage inquiry for 

patentability set forth by the Supreme Court in Mayo 

Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 

132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012), and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank 

International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the magistrate 

judge found that the ’379 patent was directed to an “abstract idea” and that the claims did not contain an “inventive concept.”

The purpose of the ’379 patent, the magistrate judge

explained, “is the dissemination of regionally broadcasted 

content to users outside the region.” That purpose, he 

held, is a “fundamental economic and conventional business practice” that is both “well-known and historically 

long-standing”; he therefore concluded that the claims 

were directed to an abstract idea.

The magistrate judge next found that the claims of 

the ’379 patent do not contain an inventive concept such 

that they do more than claim the ineligible idea itself. He 

 

magistrate judge that claim 1 of the ’379 patent was 

representative. In light of that concession and Affinity’s 

failure to present “any meaningful argument for the 

distinctive significance of any claim limitations other than 

those included” in claim 1, Electric Power Group, LLC v. 

Alstom S.A., No. 2015-1778 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2016), slip 

op. at 4, we treat claim 1 as representative of all the 

claims of the ’379 patent for purposes of this appeal.

Case: 15-1848 Document: 3-2 Page: 4 Filed: 09/23/2016
AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC 5

explained that the patent “merely takes the abstract 

idea . . . and applies it to a generic, electronic device, in 

this case—a wireless cellular telephone.” He then concluded that the components of claim 1 are merely “routine 

and generic processing and storing capabilities of computers generally,” and that the claimed functions—storing 

information in memory, executing a program, and sending 

and receiving data—can all be performed by a generic 

computer: “There is not a non-generic function or component contained in the claims that sets forth the blueprint 

with any degree of specificity of how to disseminate 

regional broadcast content to a user outside the region 

over a wireless, cellular telephone device.” 

In response to Affinity’s assertion that the downloadable application is an inventive concept, the magistrate judge observed that the patent “merely states that 

the application ‘enables’ the device to present a graphical 

user interface so a user can select what data that user 

wants to stream”; the patent is “devoid of any teaching or 

blueprint explaining how the device can do what it purports to do.” The “bottom line,” he explained, “is that 

Claim 1 takes the abstract idea and says ‘apply it’ to a 

wireless, cellular telephone device acting as a generic 

computer.” 

The magistrate judge also rejected Affinity’s argument based on the graphical user interface limitation in 

claim 1. He ruled that the graphical user interface limitation merely recites a generic computer component and 

does not contribute an inventive concept to the claim.

The district court accepted the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation and entered judgment against Affinity. 

The court agreed with the magistrate judge that the ’379 

patent is directed to an abstract idea. In particular, the 

court agreed that the purpose of the claimed invention—

to disseminate regionally broadcast content to users 

outside the region—is a well-known, longstanding busiCase: 15-1848 Document: 3-2 Page: 5 Filed: 09/23/2016
6 AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC

ness practice, and that the claims directed to that purpose 

are not tangible and concrete. The court also agreed that 

the claimed “downloadable application with graphical 

user interface” does not qualify as an “inventive concept.” 

II

The framework for determining whether a particular 

patent claim is directed to patentable subject matter is by 

now familiar. Section 101 of the Patent Act 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court 

has held that the broad language of that provision is 

subject to an implicit exception for “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas,” which are not patentable. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354. 

The Supreme Court has devised a two-stage framework to determine whether a claim falls outside the scope 

of section 101. The prescribed approach requires a court 

to determine (1) whether the claim is directed to a patentineligible concept, i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea, and if so, (2) whether the elements of the claim, considered “both individually and ‘as 

an ordered combination,’” add enough to “‘transform the 

nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” 

Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 

1297-98). In the context of claims that are challenged as 

containing only abstract ideas, those two stages are 

typically referred to as the “abstract idea” step and the 

“inventive concept” step.

The “abstract idea” step of the inquiry calls upon us to 

look at the “focus of the claimed advance over the prior 

art” to determine if the claim’s “character as a whole” is 

directed to excluded subject matter. The “inventive 

concept” step requires us to look with more specificity at 

Case: 15-1848 Document: 3-2 Page: 6 Filed: 09/23/2016
AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC 7

what the claim elements add, in order to determine

“whether they identify an ‘inventive concept’ in the application of the ineligible subject matter” to which the claim 

is directed. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., No.

2015-1778 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2016), slip op. at 6; see also

Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. 

Cir. 2016); Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 

1369, 1375-76 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. 

Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

We have acknowledged that “precision has been elusive in defining an all-purpose boundary between the 

abstract and the concrete.” Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at

1345. The inquiry is not an unbounded one, however. 

This court has applied the two-stage Mayo/Alice inquiry

in numerous cases during the four years since the Supreme Court’s decision in Mayo, and those decisions have 

provided substantial guidance in determining whether 

claims are unpatentable under the “abstract idea” rubric. 

Viewing this case in light of the principles set forth by the 

Supreme Court and applied by this court, we are persuaded that the claims at issue in this case fall on the 

unpatentable side of the line.

A 

The concept of providing out-of-region access to regional broadcast content is an abstract idea, as that term 

is used in the section 101 context. It is a broad and 

familiar concept concerning information distribution that 

is untethered to any specific or concrete way of implementing it.

The practice of conveying regional content to out-ofregion recipients has been employed by nearly every form 

of media that has a local distribution. It is not tied to any 

particular technology and can be implemented in myriad 

ways ranging from the low-tech, such as by mailing copies 

of a local newspaper to an out-of-state subscriber, to the 

high-tech, such as by using satellites to disseminate 

Case: 15-1848 Document: 3-2 Page: 7 Filed: 09/23/2016
8 AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC

broadcasts of sporting events. As the magistrate judge 

noted, such out-of-region broadcasts have been commonplace since the late 20th century, in the form of systems 

delivering local radio and television broadcasts of sporting 

events to a national audience. 

The ’379 patent claims the function of wirelessly

communicating regional broadcast content to an out-ofregion recipient, not a particular way of performing that 

function. While independent claim 1 refers to general 

components such as a cellular telephone, a graphical user 

interface, and a downloadable application, the claimed 

invention is entirely functional in nature. It recites 

software in the form of “an application configured for 

execution by the wireless cellular telephone device” that 

performs three functions: (1) it presents a listing of available media choices on a display on the cellular telephone; 

(2) it enables the telephone “to transmit a request for the 

regional broadcasting channel”; and (3) it enables the 

telephone “to receive a streaming media signal in the . . . 

device corresponding to the regional broadcasting channel” when the device is outside of the range of the regional 

broadcaster. There is nothing in claim 1 that is directed 

to how to implement out-of-region broadcasting on a 

cellular telephone. Rather, the claim is drawn to the idea 

itself. 

To be sure, the ’379 patent claims the wireless delivery of regional broadcast content only to cellphones. In 

that sense, the claims are not as broad as the abstract 

idea underlying them, which could apply to the delivery of 

out-of-region content to any electronic device. That restriction, however, does not alter the result. All that

limitation does is to confine the abstract idea to a particular technological environment—in this case, cellular 

telephones. The Supreme Court and this court have 

repeatedly made clear that merely limiting the field of use 

of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological 

environment does not render the claims any less abstract. 

Case: 15-1848 Document: 3-2 Page: 8 Filed: 09/23/2016
AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC 9

See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; 

Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l 

Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE,

Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 

Even if all the details contained in the specification 

were imported into the ’379 claims, the result would still 

not be a concrete implementation of the abstract idea. In 

fact, the specification underscores the breadth and abstract nature of the idea embodied in the claims.

The specification describes the wireless communication of information to an electronic device at a high level 

of generality. In a passage describing figure 1 of the ’379 

patent, reproduced below, the specification states that the 

“general system for wirelessly communicating selective 

[sic] information to an electronic device” includes “a 

digital engine 101 coupled to a communications engine 

102,” which is “remotely coupled to an electronic device 

103,” and which “may be directly or indirectly coupled to 

storage device 105 operable to store information.” ’379 

patent, col. 3, ll. 24-31. The communications engine “is 

communicatively coupled to digital engine 101 and operable to wirelessly communicate the selected information to 

electronic device 103.” Id., col. 3, ll. 37-39.

Case: 15-1848 Document: 3-2 Page: 9 Filed: 09/23/2016
10 AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC

The specification adds that “[c]ommunications engine 

102 may be operable to wirelessly communicate selected 

information to electronic device 103 in a plurality of ways. 

The present invention advantageously allows for several 

different embodiments of wirelessly communicating 

selected audio information to electronic device 103 and is

not limited to any specific configuration.” Id., col. 4, ll. 33-

38. “Therefore, system 100 may be configured in a plurality of ways to communicate selected information to electronic device 103.” Id., col. 6, ll. 8-10.

In the very brief discussion that is pertinent to out-ofregion broadcasting claims, the specification states that “a 

user may want to listen to a radio station located in a 

remote location wherein conventional radio receivers 

could not receive the desired broadcast. For example, a 

person living in Houston, Tex. may not be able to receive 

a radio broadcast signal from a radio station in Seattle, 

Wash. utilizing a conventional radio receiver.” ’379 

patent, col. 15, ll. 59-64.2 

That passage describes the objective of making broadcast media available outside of its usual local distribution 

area. The passage is found in a portion of the specification that describes a flow chart with a series of steps

relating to the provision of audio content over the Internet 

to an electronic device. ’379 patent, col. 14, line 34, 

through col. 17, line 17. The first two steps in the flow 

chart read “User accesses web page via Internet” and 

“User selects audio information.” The next pertinent step 

reads “Wirelessly communicate info to selected device.” 

 

2 Essentially the same specification has been used 

in a family of applications that have given rise to a series 

of issued patents dealing with different subject matter. 

The specification deals at length with subjects such as 

providing access to recorded music and Internet radio. 

Very little of the specification relates to the subject matter of the ’379 patent claims. 

Case: 15-1848 Document: 3-2 Page: 10 Filed: 09/23/2016
AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC 11

Several additional steps relate to the customization and 

execution of a music playlist, not broadcast radio content. 

’379 patent, Fig. 8. 

Nothing in the flow chart or the text of the specification provides any details regarding the manner in which 

the invention accomplishes the recited functions. The 

specification contains several other references to radio 

stations using the Internet to transmit their signals and 

communicating information by using digital broadcast 

signals, but it contains no further discussion of how the 

invention implements the delivery of ordinary broadcast 

radio signals to cellphones. See Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (adding a “computer aided” limitation is insufficient to constitute a 

specific application where “[t]he claims are silent as to 

how a computer aids the method, the extent to which a 

computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method”).

The idea underlying the inventions in this case is akin 

to the ideas underlying the claims in several of this 

court’s recent cases. In In re TLI Communications LLC 

Patent Litigation, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the

claimed invention was a “method for recording and administering digital images,” which entailed “recording 

images using a digital pick up unit in a telephone unit,” 

storing the images as digital images, transmitting the 

digital images and classification information to a server, 

and then storing the digital images in the server in light 

of the classification information. 

The court held that the claim at issue in TLI was abstract in that it was drawn to the abstract idea of classifying an image and storing the image based on its 

classification. While the claim required the use of concrete, tangible components such as a telephone unit and a 

server, the court noted that the specification made clear 

that the recited physical components “merely provide a 

Case: 15-1848 Document: 3-2 Page: 11 Filed: 09/23/2016
12 AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC

generic environment in which to carry out the abstract 

idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner.” Id. at 611.

In addressing computer-implemented patents, the 

TLI court contrasted claims that are directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer with claims 

that “simply add[] conventional computer components to 

well-known business practices” or consist only of “generalized steps to be performed on a computer using conventional computer activity.” Id. at 612. The claims in TLI 

were not directed to an improvement in computer functionality, but were directed to “the use of conventional or 

generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment.” Id. The court explained that the specification 

“does not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new 

physical combination of the two,” but instead “describes 

the system and methods in purely functional terms.” Id. 

Thus, the court concluded, the claims “are not directed to 

a solution to a ‘technological problem.’” Id. at 613.

Another case involving a similar abstract idea is Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 

2014). The patent at issue in that case was drawn to a 

method for distributing copyrighted content over the 

Internet, in which a consumer would be given access to 

copyrighted material in exchange for viewing an advertisement and the advertiser would pay for the copyrighted 

content. The court held that “[t]he process of receiving 

copyrighted media, selecting an ad, offering the media in 

exchange for watching the selected ad, displaying the ad, 

allowing the consumer access to the media, and receiving 

payment from the sponsor of the ad all describe an abstract idea, devoid of a concrete or tangible application.” 

Id. at 715.

Focusing on the additional limitations in the claims, 

the court held that most of them simply described “the 

abstract idea of showing an advertisement before deliverCase: 15-1848 Document: 3-2 Page: 12 Filed: 09/23/2016
AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC 13

ing free content.” Id. As for the remaining limitations, 

the court ruled that “the addition of merely novel or nonroutine components to the claimed idea [does not] necessarily turn[] an abstraction into something concrete.” 

Rather, the court explained, “any novelty in implementation of the idea is a factor to be considered only in the 

second step of the Alice analysis.” Id. 

Although the technology at issue in this case differs 

from that involved in TLI and Ultramercial, the analysis 

of the “abstract idea” step in those cases is instructive

here. As in those cases, the patent in this case involves 

the conveyance and manipulation of information using 

wireless communication and computer technology. While 

the inventions in those cases involved tangible components, the components were conventional and were used 

in conventional ways. The same is true in this case, as 

the claimed cellular telephone is used to receive wireless 

signals, the claimed graphical user interface is used to 

display a menu of options to the user, and the claimed 

broadcasting system is used as the source of streaming 

content.

Affinity relies on two of this court’s cases to support 

its contention that the claims in this case are not directed 

to an abstract idea. The first of those cases is DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 

2014). The claims in that case recited systems used to 

enable host websites to avoid losing visitors when those 

visitors clicked on an advertisement on the host site. 

Instead of directing the visitor to the advertiser’s website, 

the claimed invention provided for the host to present a 

composite web page to the visitor’s computer having the 

“look and feel” of the host web page, along with content 

based on product information from the advertiser’s product catalog.

We held that the patents in DDR Holdings were not 

ineligible under section 101. First, we noted that the 

Case: 15-1848 Document: 3-2 Page: 13 Filed: 09/23/2016
14 AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC

claims did not embody a fundamental economic principle 

or a longstanding commercial practice. Rather, the challenge of retaining website visitors was a novel one “particular to the Internet.” Id. at 1257. Moreover, we held 

that the claimed invention did not simply use computers 

to serve a conventional business purpose; instead, the 

invention was “necessarily rooted in computer technology 

in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the 

realm of computer networks.” Id. The invention entailed 

the storage of visually perceptible elements of numerous 

websites and the construction of new, hybrid web pages 

that merge the “content associated with the products of 

the third-party merchant with the stored ‘visually perceptible elements’ from the identified host website.” Id. 

The DDR Holdings court distinguished Ultramercial

on the ground that the claims in DDR Holdings did not 

“broadly and generically claim ‘use of the Internet’ to 

perform an abstract business practice,” but instead specified “how interactions with the Internet are manipulated 

to yield a desired result.” Id. at 1258. Moreover, the DDR

Holdings court observed that the claims in that case 

recited a specific way to automate the creation of a composite web page and did not preempt “every application of 

the idea of increasing sales by making two web pages look 

the same.” Id. at 1259. In short, DDR Holdings dealt 

with a patent that required doing something to a web 

page, not simply doing something on a web page, a difference that the court regarded as important to the issue of 

patent eligibility. 

That is not the case here. The patent in this case is 

not directed to the solution of a “technological problem,” 

Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358, nor is it directed to an improvement in computer or network functionality. Instead, it 

claims the general concept of out-of-region delivery of 

broadcast content through the use of conventional devices, 

without offering any technological means of effecting that 

concept.

Case: 15-1848 Document: 3-2 Page: 14 Filed: 09/23/2016
AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC 15

The second case relied on by Affinity is Enfish, LLC v. 

Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As in 

DDR Holdings, the focus of the claims in Enfish was on 

“an improvement to computer functionality itself, not on 

economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in 

its ordinary capacity.” Id. at 1336. In this case, the 

claims are directed not to an improvement in cellular

telephones but simply to the use of cellular telephones as 

tools in the aid of a process focused on an abstract idea. 

That is not enough to constitute patentable subject matter. See Elec. Power Grp., slip op. at 8; see also McRo, Inc. 

v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., No. 15-1080 (Fed. Cir. 

Sep. 13, 2016), slip op. at 24 (claims held patent-eligible 

because they made “a specific asserted improvement in 

computer animation”). 

B

In applying step two of the Mayo/Alice analysis, our 

task is to “determine whether the claims do significantly 

more than simply describe [the] abstract method” and 

thus transform the abstract idea into patentable subject 

matter. Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715. We look to see 

whether there are any “additional features” in the claims 

that constitute an “inventive concept,” thereby rendering

the claims eligible for patenting even if they are directed 

to an abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357. Those 

“additional features” must be more than “well-understood, 

routine, conventional activity.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298; 

Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715.

Upon examining claim 1 and the specification of the 

’379 patent, we find no “inventive concept” that transforms the abstract idea of out-of-region delivery of regional broadcasting into a patent-eligible application of that

abstract idea. The claim simply recites the use of generic 

features of cellular telephones, such as a storage medium 

and a graphical user interface, as well as routine funcCase: 15-1848 Document: 3-2 Page: 15 Filed: 09/23/2016
16 AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC

tions, such as transmitting and receiving signals, to 

implement the underlying idea.

That is not enough. As the Supreme Court stated in 

Alice, “generic computer implementation” is insufficient to 

transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patenteligible invention. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357. More 

generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified 

at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not 

make that idea patentable. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300. The 

’379 patent does not provide an inventive solution to a 

problem in implementing the idea of remote delivery of 

regional broadcasting; it simply recites that the abstract 

idea of remote delivery will be implemented using the 

conventional components and functions generic to cellular 

telephones. 

Addressing the same general issue, this court in Ultramercial considered whether the steps set forth in the 

claims in that case embodied an inventive concept sufficient “to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into patenteligible subject matter.” 772 F.3d at 715 (citing Alice, 134 

S. Ct. at 2357). The court noted that the sequence of 

steps did not “do significantly more than simply describe 

[the] abstract method,” id., and that they were simply 

“conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” id. at 716 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357). The 

court added that the fact that some of those steps had not 

previously been employed in the art was not sufficient, 

standing alone, “to confer patent eligibility upon the 

claims at issue.” Id. at 716.

Affinity asserts that the use of a downloadable application for presenting a graphical user interface on a 

cellular telephone capable of listing contents for streaming was novel as of the priority date of the patent. Even 

Case: 15-1848 Document: 3-2 Page: 16 Filed: 09/23/2016
AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC 17

assuming that is true, it does not avoid the problem of 

abstractness.3 

The essential advance is not in the process of downloading applications, but only in the content of this particular application, and that is nothing but a functionally 

described display of information. That description does 

not cross out of the abstract idea category. Elec. Power 

Grp., slip op. at 4. There is no further specification of a 

particular technology for getting the defined content 

displayed. Thus, the user-downloadable application does 

not constitute an inventive concept sufficient to render 

the claims patent-eligible.

This court employed similar analysis in Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014). That case 

involved patents directed to a method of (1) extracting 

data from hard copy documents using an automated 

digitizing unit such as a scanner, (2) recognizing specific 

information from the extracted data, and (3) storing that 

information in memory. Id. at 1315. The method could be 

used, for example, in an automated teller machine that 

recognizes information on a scanned check.

The Content Extraction court held that the claims before it were drawn to the abstract idea of data recognition 

and storage. Id. at 1346-47. In analyzing the “inventive 

concept” step, the court looked to whether the claims 

involved “more than performance of ‘well-understood, 

routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to 

the industry.’” Id. at 1347-48 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 

2359). The court held that they did not. Rather, it noted, 

 

3 As the eligibility finding does not turn on the novelty of using a user-downloadable application for the 

particular purpose set out in the claims, there was no 

error in the district court’s not relying on Affinity’s expert’s testimony that it was a novel feature.

Case: 15-1848 Document: 3-2 Page: 17 Filed: 09/23/2016
18 AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC

the claims merely recited the use of existing scanning and 

processing technology to recognize and store data from 

specific data fields. Id. at 1348. Because it concluded 

that “the basic character of [the plaintiff’s] claims is the 

abstract idea of extracting and storing data from hard 

copy documents using generic scanning and processing 

technology,” the court held the claims patent-ineligible. 

Id. at 1349.

The court in Content Extraction also held that dependent claims that added “well-known, routine, and 

conventional functions” did not transform the abstract 

idea into a patentable invention. Id. at 1349. The dependent claims at issue in that case closely parallel the 

dependent claims at issue in this one; like the dependent 

claims in Content Extraction, the dependent claims of the 

’379 patent all recite functions that are not inventive but 

simply constitute particular choices from within the range 

of existing content or hardware, such as specifying that 

the regional broadcast is FM radio or video content, that 

the graphical user interface displays song information, or 

that the storage medium buffers content.4

A second case addressing the “inventive concept” step 

in an analogous context is Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First 

Choice Loan Services, Inc., 811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 

The claims in that case were directed to a computerimplemented system for enabling borrowers to shop 

anonymously for loans by having both lenders and borrowers upload information so that the borrower could 

identify a loan package for which he would be eligible and 

determine the cost before the lender was made aware of 

the buyer’s identity. Viewing the claim limitations as a 

 

4 In any event, as noted above, Affinity has not separately argued the patent eligibility of the dependent 

claims and thus has waived any argument that those 

claims should be analyzed separately from claim 1.

Case: 15-1848 Document: 3-2 Page: 18 Filed: 09/23/2016
AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC 19

whole, the court held that the invention was directed to 

the abstract idea of “anonymous loan shopping,” even 

though it involved computer-implemented communication 

of particular data between prospective borrowers and 

lenders. Id. at 1324.

The court rejected the argument that the computer 

components recited in the claims constituted an “inventive concept.” It held that the claims added “only 

generic computer components such as an ‘interface,’ 

‘network,’ and ‘database,’” and that “recitation of generic 

computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.” Id. at 1324-25 (citations omitted). The court noted that nothing in the asserted claims 

purported to improve the functioning of the computer 

itself or “effect an improvement in any other technology or 

technical field.” Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1325 

(quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359). 

A third case similar to this one is Intellectual Ventures 

I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. 

Cir. 2015). There, the court found that the patent claims 

were directed to the abstract idea of tailoring website 

content based on the viewer’s location or the time of day 

when the user navigated to the website. Id. at 1369. The 

court then ruled that the recited “interactive interface” 

was not a “specific application of the abstract idea that 

provides an inventive concept.” Id. at 1370. 

Noting that the patentee did not assert that it had invented an interactive interface that manages web content, 

the court held that the interface limitation was simply “a 

generic computer element” and therefore did not constitute an “inventive concept” under the second part of the 

Mayo/Alice test. Id. at 1370-71; see also Versata Dev. 

Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 

2015) (“conventional and well-known limitations involving 

a computer” are not an inventive concept); Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1346 (“a known idea, or one that is 

Case: 15-1848 Document: 3-2 Page: 19 Filed: 09/23/2016
20 AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC

routine and conventional, is not inventive in patent 

terms”); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d

1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Beyond the abstract idea of 

offer-based price optimization, the claims merely recite 

‘well-understood, routine conventional activit[ies],’ either 

by requiring conventional computer activities or routine 

data-gathering steps, [which] fail ‘to “transform” the 

claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.’”)

(quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357, 2359, and Mayo, 132 

S. Ct. at 1294, 1298)

In arguing that the ’379 patent contains an “inventive 

concept,” Affinity relies on this court’s recent decision in 

BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility 

LLC, No. 2015-1763 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2016). The patent 

in that case was directed to systems for filtering content 

on the Internet. The claims provided for individually 

customizable filtering on a remote Internet service provider server.

Addressing the “abstract idea” step, the court held 

that filtering content is an abstract idea, and that it 

remained an abstract idea even when placed in the context of an Internet computer network. Id., slip op. at 12-

13. The court deferred its discussion of the specific limitations of the claims until the second step of the analysis. 

Id. at 13.

With respect to that step, the court held that the 

claims disclosed an “inventive concept,” consisting of “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., slip op. at 15. The invention took advantage of the ability of some Internet service 

providers to associate a request for Internet content with 

a specific individual account. Exploiting that capability, 

the invention was able to provide customized filtering by

locating the filtering system on the Internet service 

provider’s server. The specificity of the technical solution 

Case: 15-1848 Document: 3-2 Page: 20 Filed: 09/23/2016
AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC 21

provided by the claims in BASCOM stands in sharp 

contrast to the absence of any such specific technical 

solution in the claims of the ’379 patent. 

In applying the principles emerging from the developing body of law on abstract ideas under section 101, this 

court has noted that claims that are “so result-focused, so 

functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem” are frequently held ineligible under section 

101. Elec. Power Grp., slip op. at 12. That is true in this 

case, as the claims are drafted in a way that would effectively cover any wireless delivery of out-of-region broadcasting content to a cellular telephone via a network. 

The only limitations on the breadth of the resultfocused, functional claims in this case are (1) that the 

application used by the cellular telephone must be wirelessly downloadable, and (2) that the cellular telephone 

must have a graphical user interface display that allows 

the user to select the regional broadcasting channel. 

Those additional limitations describe purely conventional 

features of cellular telephones and the applications that 

enable them to perform particular functions. They therefore do not meaningfully limit the scope of the claims. 

We conclude that the claims of the ’379 patent are 

drawn to an abstract idea and therefore fail to meet the 

standard for eligibility under section 101.

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-1848 Document: 3-2 Page: 21 Filed: 09/23/2016