United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

TRINITY INFO MEDIA, LLC, FKA TRINITY INTEL 

MEDIA, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

COVALENT, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2022-1308

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Central District of California in No. 2:21-cv-01360-JWHMRW, Judge John W. Holcomb.

______________________ 

Decided: July 14, 2023

______________________ 

GREGORY HILLYER, Hillyer Legal, PLLC, Washington, 

DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. 

 THOMAS DIETRICH, McArthur Law Firm PC, Beverly 

Hills, CA, argued for defendant-appellee. 

 ______________________ 

Before STOLL, BRYSON, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.

CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judge.

Case: 22-1308 Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 07/14/2023
2 TRINITY INFO MEDIA, LLC v. COVALENT, INC. 

Trinity Info Media, LLC sued Covalent, Inc. for infringement of patent claims relating to methods and systems for connecting users based on their answers to polling 

questions. The United States District Court for the Central 

District of California granted Covalent’s motion to dismiss, 

concluding that the asserted patents do not claim patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., 562 F. Supp. 3d 770 (C.D. Cal. 

2021) (“Decision”). We affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND

In February 2021, Trinity sued Covalent and asserted

U.S. Patent Nos. 9,087,321 and 10,936,685, entitled “PollBased Networking System.” J.A. 30; J.A. 73–88 (Amended 

Complaint); ’321 patent; ’685 patent.1 More specifically, 

the ’321 patent teaches that its claimed invention is “directed to a poll-based networking system that connects users based on similarities as determined through poll 

answering and provides real-time results to the users.” 

’321 patent col. 1 ll. 53–56. The ’321 patent explains that 

“[w]hile considering the failure of others to make use of all 

of the above components in this technology space, the inventors unexpectedly realized that using a plurality of 

match servers would allow the system to quickly connect 

the users based on their similarities.” Id. col. 1 ll. 56–60. 

The ’685 patent is similar to the ’321 patent, but it contains 

additional disclosures discussing progressive polling for 

ecommerce systems. ’685 patent col. 2 l. 1 to col. 3. l. 60. 

The claimed invention of the ’685 patent is “directed to a 

poll-based networking and ecommerce system that connects users to other users, or products, goods and/or services based on similarities as determined through poll 

1 The ’685 patent is related to the ’321 patent, and 

both patents trace their priority date to U.S. Provisional 

Application No. 61/309,038, filed on March 1, 2010. ’321 

patent col. 1 ll. 5–7; ’685 patent col. 1 ll. 6–15.

Case: 22-1308 Document: 27 Page: 2 Filed: 07/14/2023
TRINITY INFO MEDIA, LLC v. COVALENT, INC. 3

answering and provides real-time results to the users.” Id.

col. 2 ll. 3–7. 

Trinity asserted claims 1–3, 8, and 20 of the ’321 patent 

and claims 2, 3, 12–14, 16, 17, 20–22, 24, and 25 of the ’685 

patent. Decision at 776. Independent Claim 12 of the ’321 

patent recites: 

1. A poll-based networking system, comprising:

a data processing system having one or 

more processors and a memory, the 

memory being specifically encoded with instructions such that when executed, the instructions cause the one or more processors 

to perform operations of:

receiving user information from a 

user to generate a unique user profile for the user;

providing the user a first polling 

question, the first polling question 

having a finite set of answers and a 

unique identification;

receiving and storing a selected answer for the first polling question;

2 We focus our analysis on those claims and limitations that Trinity, the patentee, relies upon to argue that 

the asserted claims are patent eligible under § 101. See 

Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018) 

(“Courts may treat a claim as representative in certain situations, such as if the patentee does not present any meaningful argument for the distinctive significance of any 

claim limitations not found in the representative claim or 

if the parties agree to treat a claim as representative.”). 

Case: 22-1308 Document: 27 Page: 3 Filed: 07/14/2023
4 TRINITY INFO MEDIA, LLC v. COVALENT, INC. 

comparing the selected answer 

against the selected answers of 

other users, based on the unique 

identification, to generate a likelihood of match between the user 

and each of the other users; and

displaying to the user the user profiles of other users that have a likelihood of match within a 

predetermined threshold.

’321 patent claim 1. Independent claim 19 describes the 

limitations of claim 1 as a “computer program product for 

creating a poll-based network” instead of a “poll-based networking system.” Id. claim 19.

Independent claim 2 of the ’685 patent recites: 

2. A computer-implemented method for creating a 

poll-based network, the method comprising an act 

of causing one or more processors having an associated memory specifically encoded with computer 

executable instruction means to execute the instruction means to cause the one or more processors to collectively perform operations of:

receiving user information from a user to 

generate a unique user profile for the user;

providing the user one or more polling 

questions, the one or more polling questions having a finite set of answers and a 

unique identification;

receiving and storing a selected answer for 

the one or more polling questions;

comparing the selected answer against the 

selected answers of other users, based on 

the unique identification, to generate a 

Case: 22-1308 Document: 27 Page: 4 Filed: 07/14/2023
TRINITY INFO MEDIA, LLC v. COVALENT, INC. 5

likelihood of match between the user and 

each of the other users;

causing to be displayed to the user other 

users, that have a likelihood of match 

within a predetermined threshold;

wherein one or more of the operations are 

carried out on a hand-held device; and 

wherein two or more results based on the 

likelihood of match are displayed in a list 

reviewable by swiping from one result to 

another.

’685 patent claim 2. Independent claim 3 of the ’685 patent

recites many of the limitations of claim 2 as a “computer 

program product for creating a poll-based network” instead 

of a “computer-implemented method.” Id. claim 3. 

Covalent filed a motion to dismiss Trinity’s amended 

complaint, arguing that the asserted claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Decision at 778. The district court 

granted Covalent’s motion after finding that the asserted 

claims were directed to the abstract idea of “matching users who gave corresponding answers to a question” and did

not contain an inventive concept. Id. at 782–88. The district court further described claim 1 of the ’321 patent as 

not improving computer functionality but instead using

“generic computer components as tools to perform the functions faster than a human would.” Id. at 782. 

Trinity appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(1). 

II. DISCUSSION

We apply the law of the regional circuit to review a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss. See Bot M8 LLC 

v. Sony Corp. of Am., 4 F.4th 1342, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2021). 

The Ninth Circuit reviews the grant of a 12(b)(6) motion to 

dismiss de novo, accepting all factual allegations in the 

Case: 22-1308 Document: 27 Page: 5 Filed: 07/14/2023
6 TRINITY INFO MEDIA, LLC v. COVALENT, INC. 

complaint as true and construing the pleadings in the light 

most favorable to the nonmovant. Id. (citing Knievel v. 

ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005)). 

“Patent eligibility is a question of law that may involve 

underlying questions of fact,” “[b]ut ‘not every § 101 determination contains genuine disputes over the underlying 

facts material to the § 101 inquiry.’” PersonalWeb Techs. 

LLC v. Google LLC, 8 F.4th 1310, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2021)

(first citing Simio, LLC v. FlexSim Software Prods., Inc., 

983 F.3d 1353, 1358–59 (Fed. Cir. 2020); and then quoting 

Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1368). “We review the district 

court’s ultimate patent-eligibility conclusion de novo.” Id.

at 1315 (citing Simio, 983 F.3d at 1359). 

Section 101 of the Patent Act defines patent-eligible 

subject matter as “any new and useful process, machine, 

manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and 

useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has long held that there is an “implicit exception” in § 101—“[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and 

abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. 

CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (quoting Ass’n for 

Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 

589 (2013)). To do so, we apply the two-step framework set 

forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 77–80 (2012), and further detailed in Alice. At step one, we “determine whether the 

claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible 

concepts” such as an abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. 

At 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.” Id. (quoting 

Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78–79) (cleaned up). “We have described 

step two of this analysis as a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., 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 

Case: 22-1308 Document: 27 Page: 6 Filed: 07/14/2023
TRINITY INFO MEDIA, LLC v. COVALENT, INC. 7

concept] itself.’” Id. at 217–18 (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73). 

As an initial matter, Trinity argues that the district

court needed to conduct claim construction and fact discovery before analyzing the asserted claims under § 101. Appellant’s Br. 35–38. We disagree. “[W]e have repeatedly 

affirmed § 101 rejections at the motion to dismiss stage, before claim construction or significant discovery has commenced.” Cleveland Clinic Found. v. True Health 

Diagnostics LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (collecting cases). A patentee must do more than invoke a generic need for claim construction or discovery to avoid 

grant of a motion to dismiss under § 101. Instead, the patentee must propose a specific claim construction or identify specific facts that need development and explain why 

those circumstances must be resolved before the scope of 

the claims can be understood for § 101 purposes. See id.

(affirming dismissal based on § 101 where patentee “provided no proposed construction of any terms or proposed 

expert testimony that would change the § 101 analysis”); 

see also Simio, 983 F.3d at 1365 (“The main problem with 

this argument is that Simio has not explained how it might 

benefit from any particular term’s construction under an 

Alice § 101 analysis.”).3 Because Trinity did not identify a 

proposed claim construction or specific facts to be 

3 As another example, we recently affirmed a district 

court’s decision that it would be futile, for purposes of 

§ 101, for a patentee to amend its complaint where the 

“proposed amendment merely sought to add conclusory 

statements that the claimed steps were not well-known, 

routine, and conventional.” Sanderling Mgmt. Ltd. v. Snap 

Inc., 65 F.4th 698, 706 (Fed. Cir. 2023).

Case: 22-1308 Document: 27 Page: 7 Filed: 07/14/2023
8 TRINITY INFO MEDIA, LLC v. COVALENT, INC. 

discovered that would change our analysis,4 we proceed to 

analyzing the asserted claims under § 101. 

A. Alice/Mayo Step One

We must first determine whether the asserted claims

are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea. We conclude that they are directed to the abstract idea of matching based on questioning. We find 

Trinity’s arguments to the contrary unpersuasive. 

i. 

To determine whether a claim is “directed to” a patent 

ineligible concept, we evaluate “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.” 

PersonalWeb, 8 F.4th at 1315 (quoting Intell. Ventures I 

LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 

2017)) (cleaned up). “[W]hile the specification may help illuminate the true focus of a claim, when analyzing patent 

eligibility, reliance on the specification must always yield 

to the claim language in identifying that focus.” ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 766 (Fed. 

Cir. 2019). 

Courts must ascertain the “basic character of the 

[claimed] subject matter” without describing the claims at 

“such a high level of abstraction and untethered from the 

4 At oral argument, the district court asked Trinity 

“[w]hich limitation in claim one requires construction in 

your view?” J.A. 148. Trinity responded by identifying 

those claim terms it believed required construction: receiving, storing, and comparing based on a unique identifier. 

J.A. 149; see also Appellant’s Br. 35–36. But Trinity did 

not identify any proposed construction of those terms, nor 

did it explain how that proposed construction would affect 

an analysis under § 101. J.A. 149. 

Case: 22-1308 Document: 27 Page: 8 Filed: 07/14/2023
TRINITY INFO MEDIA, LLC v. COVALENT, INC. 9

language of the claims” that the claims would be virtually 

guaranteed to be abstract. Compare Internet Pats. Corp. v. 

Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015)

(agreeing “character” of claims was abstract idea of “retaining information in the navigation of online forms”), with 

Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337–39

(Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims directed to self-referential 

database table were not directed to an abstract idea); see 

also Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 

1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding “focus of the asserted 

claims” was on “collecting information, analyzing it, and 

displaying certain results of the collection and analysis”). 

A “telltale sign of abstraction” is when the claimed 

functions are “mental processes that ‘can be performed in 

the human mind’ or ‘using a pencil and paper.’” PersonalWeb, 8 F.4th at 1316 (quoting CyberSource Corp. v. Retail 

Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). 

We have previously found “analyzing information by steps 

people go through in their minds” and “collecting information, including when limited to particular content” to be 

abstract. Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1353–54 (“[M]erely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and 

analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a 

particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary 

part of such collection and analysis.”); see also SAP Am., 

Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018)

(“[S]electing certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis . . . is all abstract.”). 

Independent claims 1 and 19 of the ’321 patent require: 

(1) receiving user information; (2) providing a polling question; (3) receiving and storing an answer; (4) comparing 

that answer to generate a “likelihood of match” with other 

users; and (5) displaying certain user profiles based on that 

likelihood. ’321 patent claims 1 and 19. Independent 

claims 2 and 3 of the ’685 patent generally require many of 

the same steps, but they add reviewing matches using 

Case: 22-1308 Document: 27 Page: 9 Filed: 07/14/2023
10 TRINITY INFO MEDIA, LLC v. COVALENT, INC. 

swiping and using a “hand-held device.” ’685 patent claims 

2 and 3. These independent claims are focused on “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results,” which places them in the “familiar class of claims 

‘directed to’ a patent-ineligible concept.” See Elec. Power, 

830 F.3d at 1353; see also Free Stream Media Corp. v. Alphonso Inc., 996 F.3d 1355, 1358–59, 1364–65 (Fed. Cir. 

2021) (finding claims using a “relevancy-matching server” 

to deliver targeted data based on “content identification 

data” and a “relevancy factor” directed to an abstract idea). 

A human mind could review people’s answers to questions 

and identify matches based on those answers. We agree 

with the district court that the independent claims of both 

patents are directed to an abstract idea, matching based on 

questioning. Decision at 782–83. 

The ’685 patent’s requirements that the abstract idea 

be performed on a “hand-held device” or that matches are 

“reviewable by swiping” does not alter our conclusion that 

the focus of the asserted claims remains directed to an abstract idea. See, e.g., In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 

823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A]lthough the claims 

limit the abstract idea to a particular environment—a mobile telephone system—that does not make the claims any 

less abstract for the step 1 analysis.”). Nor are we persuaded that dependent claim 8 of the ’321 patent—further 

requiring processors configured to perform operations with 

web servers, a database, and a match aggregator—changes 

the focus of the asserted claims. See id.; see also ChargePoint, 920 F.3d at 766–67, 770 (adding networking capabilities to facilitate network communication did not prevent 

the claim from being directed to an abstract idea); TwoWay Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 

F.3d 1329, 1333, 1337–40 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (finding claims 

involving “improved scalable architecture for delivering 

real-time information” invalid under § 101). And the remaining dependent claims merely add trivial variations of 

the abstract idea—performing matches based on gender, 

Case: 22-1308 Document: 27 Page: 10 Filed: 07/14/2023
TRINITY INFO MEDIA, LLC v. COVALENT, INC. 11

varying the number of questions asked, and/or displaying 

other users’ answers—that do not change the focus of the

asserted claims. Decision at 783–86; ’321 patent claims 

2–3, 20; ’685 patent claims 12–14, 16–17, 20–22, 24–25. 

In the context of software-based inventions, Alice/Mayo 

step one “often turns on whether the claims focus on the 

specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities or, 

instead, on a process that qualifies as an abstract idea for 

which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” In re 

Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. 

Cir. 2018)) (cleaned up). The patents’ specifications confirm that the asserted claims are directed to an abstract 

idea that merely seeks to use computers as a tool, not on 

an improvement in computer capabilities. See ChargePoint, 920 F.3d at 767–68 (relying on “problem facing the 

inventor” defined in the patent specification as part of the 

analysis to confirm claims were “directed to” abstract idea); 

see also TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d at 612 (finding inventor’s 

“problem” was not “how to combine a camera with a cellular telephone” or “how to transmit images via a cellular 

network,” but “recording, administration and archiving of 

digital images simply, fast and in such way that the information therefore may be easily tracked”) (cleaned up). 

The specifications frame the inventor’s problem in 

terms of how to improve existing polling systems by performing progressive polling, not how to improve computer 

technology. ’321 patent col. 1 ll. 35–56; see also ’685 patent 

col. 1 l. 46 to col. 2 l. 7 (minor differences). In describing 

the invention, the specifications focus on the details of receiving and comparing answers to generate matches—varying the questions asked, limiting the number of matches

displayed, and generating a “match percentage” or “match 

number.” ’321 patent col. 5 l. 53 to col. 6 l. 52; ’685 patent

col. 6 l. 33 to col. 8 l. 37. Repeatedly, the patents confirm 

they do not limit the invention to specific technological solutions. ’321 patent col. 4 ll. 2–4 (“[T]he present invention 

Case: 22-1308 Document: 27 Page: 11 Filed: 07/14/2023
12 TRINITY INFO MEDIA, LLC v. COVALENT, INC. 

may be practiced without necessarily being limited to these 

specific details.”), col. 6 ll. 30–31 (“[T]here are numerous 

techniques for determining a likelihood of match . . . .”), col. 

8 ll. 51–53 (“The physical connections of the Internet and 

the protocols and communication procedures of the Internet are well known to those of skill in the art.”); see also

’685 patent col. 4 ll. 40–43, col. 8 ll. 4–7, col. 10 ll. 41–44. 

These passages confirm that the problem facing the inventor was how to perform the abstract idea of matching based 

on questioning, not an improvement to computer technology. 

ii.

Next, we consider—and reject—several arguments 

raised by Trinity as to why its claims are not directed to an 

abstract idea. 

Trinity argues that the district court’s analysis at Alice/Mayo step one failed to appreciate several statements 

in its amended complaint demonstrating that the patents 

included an advance over the prior art. Appellant’s Br. 25 

(prior art did not carry out matching on mobile phone), 26 

(prior art did not employ “multiple match servers”), 27 

(prior art did not employ “match aggregator[s]”). These

statements do not change our analysis at Alice/Mayo step 

one. Even accepting these statements as true, the claims 

are directed to nothing more than performing the abstract 

idea of matching on a mobile phone. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016)

(“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract

idea.”). Our focus is on the claims, as informed by the specification. See, e.g., ChargePoint, 920 F.3d at 766. 

Trinity also argues that humans could not mentally engage in the “same claimed process” because they could not 

perform “nanosecond comparisons” and aggregate “result 

values with huge numbers of polls and members,” nor could 

they select criteria using “servers, storage, identifiers, 

and/or thresholds.” Appellant’s Br. 31. Notably, Trinity’s

Case: 22-1308 Document: 27 Page: 12 Filed: 07/14/2023
TRINITY INFO MEDIA, LLC v. COVALENT, INC. 13

arguments are not tethered to the asserted claims, which 

do not require “nanosecond comparisons” or aggregating 

“huge numbers of polls and members.” See, e.g., ’321 patent 

claims 1 and 8; see, e.g., ’685 patent claim 2. Moreover, although a human could not “detect[] events on an interconnected electric power grid in real time over a wide area and 

automatically analyz[e] the events on the interconnected 

electric power grid,” we nevertheless found such claims to 

be directed to an abstract idea in Electric Power Group. 

830 F.3d at 1351, 1353–54. Similarly, a human could not 

communicate over a computer network without the use of 

a computer, yet we held that claims directed to enabling 

“communication over a network” were focused on an abstract idea in ChargePoint. 920 F.3d at 766–67. Likewise, 

Trinity’s asserted claims can be directed to an abstract idea 

even if the claims require generic computer components or 

require operations that a human could not perform as 

quickly as a computer. 

Trinity compares this case to other decisions where we 

found the patented invention to be directed to improvements to the functionality of a computer or network platform itself. Appellant’s Br. 30–31. But Trinity relies on 

generic computing terms—e.g., “data processing system,” 

“processors,” “memory”—that provide a generic technical 

environment for performing the abstract idea. See TLI 

Commc’ns, 823 F.3d at 611 (noting that “telephone unit” 

and “server” “merely provide a generic environment in 

which to carry out the abstract idea”). Both patents-in-suit 

confirm the asserted claims do not require specialized computing components. ’321 patent col. 9 ll. 56–59 (“The computer system may be a conventional computer system that 

can be used as a member computer system or a server computer system or as a web server computer system.”), col. 10 

ll. 10–12 (conventional microprocessor), col. 10 ll. 13–15 

(memory can be dynamic random access memory (DRAM) 

or static ram (SRAM)); see also ’685 patent col. 10 ll. 49–52, 

col. 12 ll. 4–9. The ’685 patent teaches that the “advent of 

Case: 22-1308 Document: 27 Page: 13 Filed: 07/14/2023
14 TRINITY INFO MEDIA, LLC v. COVALENT, INC. 

the internet and mobile phones” allowed the establishment 

of a “plethora” of “mobile apps.” ’685 patent col. 1 ll. 27–29. 

The ’685 patent also does not purport to have invented 

swiping or to improve on that process. See, e.g., ChargePoint, 920 F.3d at 768 (reviewing specification for “what it 

states and what it does not”) (emphasis added)). In other 

words, the specification does not support a finding that the 

claims are directed to a technological improvement in computer or mobile phone functionality.

Trinity further argues the district court failed to adequately consider comparing a selected answer against 

other users “based on the unique identification,” which 

Trinity asserts was a “non-traditional design” that allowed 

for “rapid comparison and aggregation of result values 

even with large numbers of polls and members.” Appellant’s Br. 27. We disagree. The use of a unique identifier 

does not prevent a claim from being directed to an abstract 

idea. Secured Mail Sols. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 

F.3d 905, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The fact that an identifier 

can be used to make a process more efficient, however, does 

not necessarily render an abstract idea less abstract.”). 

Nor are we persuaded that the purported “non-traditional 

design” makes the asserted claims not directed to an abstract idea. See Appellant’s Br. 27. Trinity points to an

“in-memory, two-dimensional array” that “provides for linear speed across multiple match servers” and permits “an 

immediate comparison to determine if the user had the 

same answer to that of another user.” Id. While dependent 

claim 7 of the ’321 patent requires an “in memory, two-dimensional array,” the asserted claims do not. See, e.g., ’321 

patent claim 8. 

Trinity also points to the use of “match servers” and “a 

match aggregator” to identify matches. Appellant’s Br. 

26–27. Of the asserted claims, only dependent claim 8 of 

the ’321 patent requires that processors be configured to 

perform operations involving a “match aggregator” and 

“web server” and storing “answers in a database.” ’321 

Case: 22-1308 Document: 27 Page: 14 Filed: 07/14/2023
TRINITY INFO MEDIA, LLC v. COVALENT, INC. 15

patent claim 8. As discussed above, these components 

merely place the abstract idea in the context of a distributed networking system, which in the context of the 

claimed invention as described in the specification does not 

change the focus of the asserted claims from an abstract 

idea. 

Finally, Trinity argues that the district court omitted 

the limitation of generating a likelihood of match “within a 

predetermined threshold,” without which “there would be 

no limit or logic associated with the volume or type of results a user would receive.” Appellant’s Br. 28. We are not 

convinced that this limitation changes the focus of the 

claimed invention to something other than the abstract 

idea of matching based on questioning. Indeed, this limitation merely reflects the kind of data analysis that the abstract idea of matching necessarily includes (e.g., how 

many answers should be the same before declaring a 

match). 

In conclusion, the asserted claims are directed to the 

abstract idea of matching based on questioning. 

B. Alice/Mayo Step Two

At Alice/Mayo step two, we “consider the elements of 

[the] 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 217 (quoting Mayo, 566 

U.S. at 79, 78). “[T]ransformation into a patent-eligible application requires more than simply stating the abstract 

idea while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Id. at 221 (quoting 

Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72) (cleaned up). Where a claim is directed to an abstract idea, the claim must include “an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed 

abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73 (cleaned up)). 

Case: 22-1308 Document: 27 Page: 15 Filed: 07/14/2023
16 TRINITY INFO MEDIA, LLC v. COVALENT, INC. 

Trinity argues that the district court failed to consider 

allegations in its amended complaint that several features 

of the asserted claims were not “well-understood, routine 

or conventional.” Appellant’s Br. 32; see also J.A. 78 

(Amended Complaint) ¶ 32 (listing features purportedly 

not present in the prior art). Taken as an ordered combination, Trinity argues claim 1 of the ’321 patent and claim 

2 of the ’685 patent contain an inventive concept because 

they recite steps performed in a “non-traditional system” 

that can “rapidly connect multiple users using progressive 

polling that compare[s] answers in real time based on their 

unique identification (ID) (and in the case of the ’685 patent 

employ swiping).” Appellant’s Br. 33. Trinity also argues 

that dependent claims 2, 3, 8, and 19 of the ’321 patent contain an inventive concept because they specify matching 

based on “all polls the user previously answered (based on 

unique identifications)” and include hardware components, 

“including a server, a database, a match aggregator and a 

plurality of match servers.” Appellant’s Br. 34–35. We disagree. 

Trinity’s amended complaint fails to adequately allege 

that the asserted claims contain inventive concepts such 

that they survive a § 101 motion. See Simio, 983 F.3d at 

1365 (“We disregard conclusory statements when evaluating a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).”). For example, Trinity’s amended complaint states that “the prior art did not 

include, alone or in any combination” certain features, including (1) real-time matching based on progressive polling, (2) using match servers and a match aggregator, 

(3) using a mobile device, (4) displaying matches reviewable by swiping, and (5) using a mobile application. J.A. 78 

(¶ 32). This conclusion follows several paragraphs that allege the present invention “includes an advance over the 

prior art and an improvement over a general-purpose computer” because it uses certain features. J.A. 78 (¶ 29) (describing “carrying out one or more operations . . . on a 

handheld device”); J.A. 78 (¶ 30) (same for “swiping”); 

Case: 22-1308 Document: 27 Page: 16 Filed: 07/14/2023
TRINITY INFO MEDIA, LLC v. COVALENT, INC. 17

J.A. 78 (¶ 31) (same for mobile application). Trinity also 

alleged that a poll-based networking system matching users in real-time “represents a significant advance over the 

art.” J.A. 77 (¶ 27). These conclusory allegations that the 

prior art lacked elements of the asserted claims are insufficient to demonstrate an inventive concept. See Simio, 983 

F.3d at 1365 (“A statement that a feature ‘improves the 

functioning and operations of the computer’ is, by itself, 

conclusory.”); see also Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 

F.3d 709, 716 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That some of the eleven 

steps were not previously employed in this art is not 

enough—standing alone—to confer patent eligibility upon 

the claims at issue.”). 

Whether viewing the claim limitations individually or 

as an ordered combination, the asserted claims do not add 

an inventive concept that would be “sufficient to ensure 

that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more 

than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Alice, 

573 U.S. at 217–18 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73). 

Trinity’s arguments as to inventiveness merely reflect the 

improved speed inherent with applying the abstract idea 

using a computer. See Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[C]laiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying 

the abstract idea on a computer [is] insufficient to render 

the claims patent eligible as an improvement to computer 

functionality.” (citation omitted) (cleaned up)); see also OIP 

Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. 

Cir. 2015) (“[R]elying on a computer to perform routine 

tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”). Nor do we see anything inventive in the ordered combination of elements. See TwoWay Media, 874 F.3d at 1341 (“The steps are organized in 

a completely conventional way—data are first processed, 

sent, and once sent, information about the transmission is 

recorded.”). So too here, the asserted claims are organized

in an expected way—receiving user information, asking 

Case: 22-1308 Document: 27 Page: 17 Filed: 07/14/2023
18 TRINITY INFO MEDIA, LLC v. COVALENT, INC. 

that user questions, receiving answers, identifying and displaying a match based on those answers.

We are also not persuaded by Trinity’s argument that 

the asserted claims include an inventive concept because 

they use “multiple processors, match servers, unique identifications and/or a match aggregator.” Appellant’s Br. 32. 

Again, we note that of the asserted claims, many of these 

features are specific to dependent claim 8.5 See ’321 patent 

claim 8. We have “ruled many times” that “invocations of 

computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application of an abstract idea.” SAP Am., 898 

F.3d at 1170 (quoting Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355). Thus, 

we found no inventive concept where claims merely recited 

“generic features” or “routine functions” to implement the 

underlying abstract idea. Free Stream Media, 996 F.3d at 

1366; see also PersonalWeb, 8 F.4th at 1316, 1318–19 

(claims using “a generic hash function, a server system, or 

5 At oral argument on appeal, Trinity emphasized 

the importance of the “unique identification” in the asserted claims. Oral Arg. at 5:17–7:03, https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=22-1308_1102202

2.mp3 (“[T]he unique identifier finds a position in the collection of match servers, so that when the searching is conducted, it can be done instantaneously.”); see also 

Appellant’s Br. 26, 32–33. The asserted claims place no 

such limits as to what can qualify as a “unique ID,” and the 

specifications confirm that a “unique ID” merely needs to 

be “unique” within the context of a single answer. ’321 patent col. 6 ll. 2–3 (“Each poll answer has a unique ID within 

that poll, starting at 0 and going to N-1 where N is the 

number of answers.”); see also ’685 patent col. 6 ll. 50–52. 

Assigning a unique ID for the answers to a question is 

simply a way of organizing human activity; it is not an inventive concept. See Secured Mail, 873 F.3d at 911. 

Case: 22-1308 Document: 27 Page: 18 Filed: 07/14/2023
TRINITY INFO MEDIA, LLC v. COVALENT, INC. 19

a computer” did not add “significantly more” to the abstract 

idea of using content-based identifiers to manage data). 

Similarly, in SAP America, we disagreed that claims using

databases and multiple processors added an inventive concept where the claims merely required “already available 

computers, with their already available basic functions, to 

use as tools in executing the claimed process.” 898 F.3d at 

1169–70. These same principles apply to the asserted 

claims, which use general-purpose processors to perform 

the steps of collecting, transmitting, receiving, and compiling users’ answers and matches. See, e.g., ’321 patent claim 

8. Thus, we conclude that the asserted patent claims—and 

specifically, claim 8 of the ’321 patent—do not provide an 

inventive concept by virtue of their use of multiple processors, match servers, unique identifications and/or a match 

aggregator. 

Our conclusion is confirmed by the ’321 patent’s specification. Rather than focus on how to implement a distributed architecture, the ’321 patent teaches the use of 

“conventional” processors, the use of a “web server computer 804” that can be a “conventional server computer system” inclusive of the “match aggregator and/or match 

server,” and that “[t]he physical connections of the Internet 

and the protocols and communication procedures of the Internet are well known to those of skill in the art.” ’321 patent col. 8 l. 51 to col. 9 l. 5, col. 10 ll. 10–12. These 

conventional components used in an expected manner do 

not provide an inventive concept. 

We are also not persuaded by Trinity’s argument that 

certain claims contain an inventive concept because they 

are performed on a handheld device, use a matching application, or permit review of matches using swiping. Appellant’s Br. 32. Just as a claim is not rendered patent eligible 

by stating an abstract idea and instructing “apply it on a 

computer,” a claim is not rendered patent eligible merely 

because the abstract idea is applied on a handheld device

or using a mobile application. See TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d

Case: 22-1308 Document: 27 Page: 19 Filed: 07/14/2023
20 TRINITY INFO MEDIA, LLC v. COVALENT, INC. 

at 615. Indeed, the ’685 patent teaches that mobile phones 

and mobile applications had been established by the time 

of its invention, ’685 patent col. 1 ll. 27–29, which confirms 

that the mere use of a mobile device, matching application, 

and/or “swiping” on a mobile device was not inventive. 

Reviewing the remaining asserted claims, we see only 

trivial variations of the limitations discussed above. Performing matches based on gender (’685 patent claims 

12–14 and 20–22), varying the number of questions asked

(’321 patent claims 2–3 and 20; ’685 patent claims 16 and 

24), and/or displaying other users’ answers (’685 patent 

claims 17 and 25) are all “insignificant data-gathering 

steps” that “add nothing of practical significance to the underlying abstract idea.” OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1364 (quoting Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716) (adding “routine 

additional steps” insufficient to transform an abstract idea 

into patent-eligible subject matter). We agree with the district court that all asserted claims fail step two of the Alice/Mayo inquiry. 

III. CONCLUSION

We have considered Trinity’s remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive. The asserted claims are patent ineligible under § 101. For the reasons discussed 

above, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED

Case: 22-1308 Document: 27 Page: 20 Filed: 07/14/2023