Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-19-02048/USCOURTS-ca13-19-02048-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Appellee
Uniloc 2017 LLC
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

UNILOC 2017 LLC,

Defendant-Appellant

______________________

2019-2048

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California in No. 3:18-cv-04991-SI, 

Senior Judge Susan Y. Illston.

______________________

Decided: May 13, 2020

______________________

DAVID P. ENZMINGER, Winston & Strawn LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by 

MATTHEW R. MCCULLOUGH, KATHERINE VIDAL, Menlo 

Park, CA; KRISHNAN PADMANABHAN, New York, NY. 

 MARC BELLOLI, Feinberg Day Kramer Alberti Lim 

Tonkovich & Belloli LLP, Burlingame, CA, for defendantappellant. Also represented by MARGARET ELIZABETH DAY, 

Menlo Park, CA. 

 ______________________

Case: 19-2048 Document: 39 Page: 1 Filed: 05/13/2020
2 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. UNILOC 2017 LLC

Before MOORE, O’MALLEY, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

MOORE, Circuit Judge.

Uniloc 2017 LLC appeals from the Northern District of 

California’s Rule 12(c) dismissal holding claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 6,980,522 ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Because claim 6 is directed to an abstract idea and fails to 

recite an inventive concept that would otherwise render the 

claim eligible, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Cisco Systems, Inc. sued Uniloc USA, Inc., Uniloc 2017, 

and Uniloc Licensing USA LLC seeking a declaration of 

noninfringement of the ’522 patent. After Cisco filed a first 

amended complaint, all three Uniloc entities answered, 

and Uniloc 2017 and Uniloc Licensing counterclaimed for 

infringement of claim 6 of the ’522 patent. Uniloc 2017 

(Uniloc) alone filed a supplemental counterclaim for infringement of claim 6, which Cisco answered denying infringement. 

The ’522 patent relates to a radio communication system comprising a plurality of stations capable of forming 

an ad-hoc network. ’522 patent at 1:3–6. Each station 

within the network is capable of acting as either a master 

or a slave. The specification explains that one aspect of the 

invention is a method of operating the system which includes ranking each of the stations based on its suitability 

to act as a master “and arranging for the role of master to 

be taken by the station having the highest rank.” Id. at 

1:59–2:3. Claim 6 covers that embodiment:

6. A method of operating an ad-hoc radio communication system having a plurality of stations formed 

into at least one network, the method comprising 

the step of:

Case: 19-2048 Document: 39 Page: 2 Filed: 05/13/2020
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. UNILOC 2017 LLC 3

determining a master/slave rank of each station in the network representative of the station’s suitability for acting as master in the 

network using antenna performance characteristics of each station in view of the antenna’s 

local environment; and enabling a station with 

the highest rank to be master.

Cisco moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 

12(c) arguing that claim 6 of the ’522 patent is ineligible 

under § 101. The district court held claim 6 was directed 

to the abstract idea of “ranking stations based on antenna 

performance characteristics and selecting the station with 

the highest rank to act as master in a network.” J.A. 8.

The district court then found that claim 6 lacked an inventive concept as “neither the claim nor the specification 

provides for implementation of the abstract idea using anything other than existing, conventional technology.” J.A. 

19. Accordingly, the district court held claim 6 ineligible 

under § 101 and granted Cisco’s motion, dismissing 

Uniloc’s counterclaim. Uniloc appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

DISCUSSION

We review a Rule 12(c) dismissal under the law of the 

regional circuit, here the Ninth Circuit. OIP Techs., Inc. v. 

Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 

The Ninth Circuit reviews Rule 12(c) judgments de novo, 

and construes all allegations of material fact in the light 

most favorable to the nonmoving party. Lyon v. Chase 

Bank USA, N.A., 656 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2011); Turner 

v. Cook, 362 F.3d 1219, 1225 (9th Cir. 2004). Patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a question of law, based on 

underlying factual findings. SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, 

LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 2018). It may be resolved on a motion to dismiss “when there are no factual 

allegations that, taken as true, prevent resolving the eligibility as a matter of law.” Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green 

Case: 19-2048 Document: 39 Page: 3 Filed: 05/13/2020
4 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. UNILOC 2017 LLC

Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 

2018). 

Section 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. 35 U.S.C. § 101. “Laws of 

nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 

(2014) (quoting Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad 

Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)). Under the Supreme Court’s two-step framework for determining patent 

eligibility under § 101, we first determine whether the 

claims are directed to a “patent-ineligible concept,” such as 

an abstract idea. Id. at 217. If so, we “consider the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered 

combination’ to determine whether the additional elements 

‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78–79 (2012)). 

I. Alice Step One

We first determine whether the claims as a whole are 

directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. The 

district court held that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of “ranking stations based on antenna performance characteristics and selecting the station with the 

highest rank to act as master in a network.” J.A. 8. We 

agree. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of selecting the highest ranked station. The general recitation 

of the familiar concepts of ranking and selecting leaves the 

claimed method “untethered to any specific or concrete way 

of implementing it.” Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. 

DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 

Uniloc argues that the claimed method is not directed 

to an abstract idea, but instead to an improvement in the 

computer or network functionality. “We have routinely 

Case: 19-2048 Document: 39 Page: 4 Filed: 05/13/2020
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. UNILOC 2017 LLC 5

held software claims patent eligible under Alice step one 

when they are directed to improvements to the functionality of a computer or network platform itself.” Uniloc USA 

Inc. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., 2020 WL 2071951, at *3, ---

F.3d --- (Fed. Cir. 2020). Whether a claimed software innovation is directed to an abstract idea “often turns on 

whether the claims focus on specific asserted improvements in computer capabilities or instead on a process or 

system that qualifies an abstract idea for which computers 

are invoked merely as a tool.” Id. (citing Customedia 

Techs., LLC v. DISH Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 

(Fed. Cir. 2020); Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 

F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Here there are no specific asserted improvements. Claim 6 is directed to the abstract idea of selecting the master based on antenna 

performance. 

Uniloc argues the claim here is like others this court 

has held eligible. We do not agree. In Finjan, Inc. v. Blue 

Coat Systems, Inc., we held that claims to a “behaviorbased virus scan” provided greater computer security and 

were thus directed to a patent-eligible improvement in 

computer functionality. 879 F.3d at 1304–06. There, the 

claims required a “security profile that identifies suspicious code,” which required that the security profile “include the information about potentially hostile operations 

produced by a ‘behavior-based’ virus scan.” Id. at 1303–04 

(emphasis in original). We held the claimed security profile 

constituted an improvement over the functionality of the 

traditional “code-matching” systems, which only looked for 

the existence of known viruses. Id. at 1304. The claims 

required a specific implementation of software that improved the computer’s functionality, and were therefore not 

directed to an abstract idea.

Similarly in SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, 

Inc., we held the claims were directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality—“providing a network defense system that monitors network traffic in real-time to 

Case: 19-2048 Document: 39 Page: 5 Filed: 05/13/2020
6 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. UNILOC 2017 LLC

automatically detect large-scale attacks.” 930 F.3d 1295, 

1303 (2019). The claims specifically required use of “network monitors in the enterprise network” to detect suspicious activity, generate reports of the activity, and 

automatically receive and integrate those reports. Id. at 

1301. “[T]he representative claim improve[d] the technical 

functioning of the computer and computer networks by reciting a specific technique for improving computer network 

security,” and was not directed to an abstract idea. Id. at 

1304. In Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, we held 

patent eligible claims which recited a “specific method for 

navigating through three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets” thereby improving the computer’s functionality. 

906 F.3d 999, 1007–08 (Fed. Cir. 2018). And in Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, we held the claims were not 

directed to an abstract idea because they “specif[ied] a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular 

method of using the raw data from the sensors in order to 

more accurately calculate the position and orientation of an 

object on a moving platform.” 850 F.3d 1343, 1349 (2017). 

Unlike the claims in these cases, claim 6 of the ’522 patent 

broadly claims solving the problem of master stations potentially having inefficient antennas by choosing the station with the best antenna. The claim does not specify any 

particular metric or method for ranking. The entirety of 

the claim is simply the abstract idea and nothing more. 

Thus, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of ranking stations using their antenna performance and choosing 

the best station as the master.

Uniloc further argues that its counterclaim should not 

have been dismissed because it “presented ‘specific, plausible factual allegations’ about why the invention of the ’522 

patent was not conventional.” Appellant’s Br. at 29. It argues that its method “involves dynamically analyzing relative rankings of antenna performance characteristics 

based on environmental variables” and “effectuat[ing] a 

hand-off of the master station in order to increase network 

Case: 19-2048 Document: 39 Page: 6 Filed: 05/13/2020
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. UNILOC 2017 LLC 7

efficiency.” Id. at 31–32. But claim 6 does not include any 

limitation relating to “dynamically analyzing” or “effectuating a hand-off.”

Uniloc argues factual allegations in the complaint 

should have precluded granting a motion to dismiss. We 

do not agree. The district court correctly recognized that 

Uniloc’s purported factual allegations were conclusory 

statements regarding eligibility. J.A. 5. Uniloc’s counterclaim made only general allegations, such as, “the patent’s

disclosure and claims are drawn to solving a specific, technical problem arising from the evolution of ad-hoc radio 

communication systems” or that “the inventions of the ’522 

patent were not well-understood, routine or conventional 

at the time of the invention.” These are not factual allegations; they are sweeping conclusory statements and the district court properly concluded that they did not preclude 

dismissal. See In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 

1055 (9th Cir. 2008).

II. Alice Step Two

At Alice step two, we “consider the 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.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 218 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78–79). 

Step two “looks more precisely at what the claim elements 

add” to determine if “they identify an inventive concept in 

the application of the ineligible matter to which . . . the 

claim is directed.” SAP, 898 F.3d at 1167.

The district court held that the additional claimed features were well-understood, routine and conventional, and 

did not provide an inventive concept that would render the 

claim patent eligible. J.A. 20. We agree. First, as the district court recognized, “neither the claim nor the specification provides for implementation of the abstract idea using 

anything other than existing, conventional technology.” 

J.A. 19. Uniloc does not dispute the district court’s finding. 

Case: 19-2048 Document: 39 Page: 7 Filed: 05/13/2020
8 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. UNILOC 2017 LLC

It admits that “the ’522 patent [uses] known computer 

hardware and . . . wireless protocols (like Bluetooth),” but 

argues that its claimed method uses them “in a new and

improved way.” Appellant’s Br. at 34. That is the only inventive concept it alleges—“forming an ad-hoc network 

that enables the station in the piconet with the highest 

rank based on antenna performance characteristics to act 

as master.” Id. at 34–35. Uniloc’s only alleged inventive 

concept is coincident with the abstract idea itself. Thus, 

there are not “additional elements,” which “‘transform the 

nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 218 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78–79). 

CONCLUSION

We have considered Uniloc’s remaining arguments and 

find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that claim 6 of the ’522 patent is directed to patentineligible subject matter under § 101 and therefore affirm.

AFFIRMED

Case: 19-2048 Document: 39 Page: 8 Filed: 05/13/2020