United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

GEMALTO M2M GMBH, GEMALTO INC., 

GEMALTO IOT LLC, TCL COMMUNICATION 

TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS LIMITED, TCL 

COMMUNICATION, INC., TCT MOBILE (US) 

HOLDINGS, INC., TCT MOBILE (US) INC., TCT 

MOBILE, INC., TELIT WIRELESS SOLUTIONS, 

INC.,

Defendants-Appellees

LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,

Intervenor

______________________

2018-1863, 2018-1864, 2018-1865

______________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware in Nos. 1:17-cv-00086-LPS, 1:17-cv00091-LPS, 1:17-cv-00092-LPS, Chief Judge Leonard P. 

Stark.

______________________

Decided: November 15, 2019 

______________________

ANDRES HEALY, Susman Godfrey LLP, Seattle, WA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by HUNTER 
2 KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH

VANCE, ALEXANDRA GISELLE WHITE, Houston, TX;

LAWRENCE PERLEY COGSWELL, III, Hamilton, Brook, Smith 

& Reynolds, PC, Boston, MA; TIMOTHY JOSEPH MEAGHER,

Concord, MA. 

 BRIAN ROSENTHAL, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, 

New York, NY, argued for all defendants-appellees and intervenor. Defendants-appellees Gemalto M2M GmbH, Gemalto Inc., Gemalto IOT LLC, also represented by BRIAN 

ANDREA, Washington, DC. 

 WILLIAM R. PETERSON, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 

Houston, TX, for defendants-appellees TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited, TCL Communication, 

Inc., TCT Mobile (US) Holdings, Inc., TCT Mobile (US) Inc., 

TCT Mobile, Inc. Also represented by JULIE S.

GOLDEMBERG, Philadelphia, PA; BRADFORD CANGRO, HANG 

ZHENG, Washington, DC. 

 DAVID A. LOEWENSTEIN, Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer 

LLP, New York, NY, for defendant-appellee Telit Wireless 

Solutions, Inc. Also represented by CLYDE SHUMAN, GUY 

YONAY. 

 CARTER GLASGOW PHILLIPS, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC, for intervenor. Also represented by RYAN C.

MORRIS; PETER H. KANG, Palo Alto, CA.

 ______________________

Before DYK, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

CHEN, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-Appellant Koninklijke KPN N.V. (KPN) owns 

U.S. Patent No. 6,212,662 (’662 patent). KPN sued Gemalto M2M GmbH, Gemalto Inc., Gemalto IOT LLC, TCL 

Communication Technology Holdings Limited, TCL Communication, Inc., TCT Mobile, Inc., TCT Mobile (US) Inc., 

TCT Mobile (US) Holdings, Inc., and Telit Wireless 
KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH 3

Solutions, Inc. (collectively “Appellees”) for infringement of 

the ’662 patent in the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware. Appellees moved for judgment on the 

pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) alleging that all four claims (claims 1–4) of the ’662 patent 

were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court 

granted Appellees’ motion with respect to all four claims, 

concluding that the claims recite no more than mere abstract data manipulation operations, such as “reordering 

data and generating additional data.” J.A. 23. On appeal, 

KPN only challenges the district court’s ineligibility decision with respect to dependent claims 2–4. As to these appealed claims, we reverse. Rather than being merely 

directed to the abstract idea of data manipulation, these 

claims are directed to an improved check data generating 

device that enables a data transmission error detection system to detect a specific type of error that prior art systems 

could not. 

In data transmission systems, it is common to generate 

something called “check data” to check whether data was 

accurately transmitted over a communications channel. 

Check data is generated based on the original data and 

thus serves as a shorthand representation of a particular 

block of data. By comparing the check data generated at

both ends of the communication channel, error detection 

systems may be able to infer whether errors occurred during transmission. For example, if the check data from both 

ends match, the system infers that the content of the received data block is the same as what was transmitted and 

thus concludes that no errors occurred during transport.

But, as the ’662 patent recognizes, matching check data 

is not always a reliable indicator of accurate data transmissions. According to the patent, certain generating functions coincidentally produce the same check data for a 

corrupted data block and an uncorrupted data block. When 

this happens, the check data is functionally defective, because the system will mistakenly believe that there were 
4 KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH

no errors in the data transmission. The problem of defective check data is aggravated for a particular type of persistent error, i.e., “systematic error,” that repeats across 

data blocks in the same way. According to the ’662 patent, 

prior art error detection systems were unable to reliably 

detect systematic errors. Once the prior art system generated defective check data for an initial data block with a 

given systematic error, the system would continue to generate defective check data for subsequent data blocks with 

the same systematic error, thus allowing these types of errors to persist in the system.

The ’662 patent solves this problem by varying the way 

check data is generated by varying the permutation applied to different data blocks. Varying the permutation for 

each data block reduces the chances that the same systematic error will produce the same defective check data across 

different data blocks. Claims 2–4 thus replace the prior art 

check data generator with an improved, dynamic check

data generator that enables increased detection of systematic errors that recur across a series of transmitted data 

blocks. As with other claims we have found to be patenteligible in prior cases, the appealed claims represent a nonabstract improvement in the functionality of an existing 

technological process and not simply an abstract idea of 

manipulating data. Accordingly, we reverse the district 

court’s grant of Appellees’ Rule 12(c) motion that claims 2–

4 are ineligible on the pleadings. 

TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND

In order to physically transmit information over the air 

from a transmitter to a receiver, that information is encoded as a series of electromagnetic pulses representing 

“0s” and “1s” of binary code, packaged into a series of individual data blocks. As the information travels through the 

air, different types of environmental factors may impact

the transmission of data in different ways. Whereas variable changes in the environment may cause random errors 
KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH 5

to appear in different data blocks, persistent properties in 

the environment, such as an “interference signal with a 

certain frequency” or “equipment error,” may cause certain 

errors to repeat themselves across each data block in the 

same way. ’662 patent at col. 1, ll. 48–52. This type of 

persistent error, called a “systematic error,” is the focus of 

the ’662 patent.

A. Prior Art Check Data Generators

Conventional prior art systems detected errors in data 

transmissions by generating something called “check data” 

(or “supplementary data”). Id. at col. 1, ll. 10–46, col. 3, ll. 

32–33. Check data is a short piece of information that is 

generated from the original data using a generating function. Id. at col. 1, ll. 55–56, col. 2, ll. 31–34. As such, check 

data effectively serves as a short-hand representation of 

the content of the original data prior to transmission. During a data transmission, check data is attached to the original data of each data block as a “redundant” piece of 

information to enable the detection of transmission errors 

by the receiver. Id. at col. 1, ll. 34–37. Since a receiver 

cannot easily tell whether a received transmission has 

been corrupted by looking at the data directly, it uses the 

appended check data as a reference point for determining 

whether errors were introduced during transport. See id. 

at col. 1, ll. 37–46. To do so, the receiver compares the appended check data generated based on the original data 

(which we refer to as “d1”) with the check data generated 

based on the received transmission (which we refer to as 

“d2”). Id. at col. 3, ll. 39–41. If check data d1 does not 

match check data d2, the receiver infers that the data used 

to generate check data d2 has changed during transmission 

from the uncorrupted data used to generate check data d1. 

Id. at col. 3, ll. 43–46. This means that errors were introduced into the original data during transmission. Id. However, if check data d1 matches check data d2, the system 

infers that there were no errors. Id. at col. 3, ll. 41–43.
6 KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH

But a match in check data does not necessarily mean 

that the original data was accurately transmitted. As 

noted by the ’662 patent, “there is always a probability that 

erroneous data are considered to be correct data because 

the [check] data may be correct by coincidence.” Id. at col. 

1, ll. 52–55. That is because check data is “restricted in 

length and therefore a finite number of [check] data can be 

distinguished.” Id. at col. 1, ll. 55–57. As a result, the same 

check data may be generated for a transmission with errors 

and another transmission without. This problem of defective check data is aggravated for a particular type of error 

called a “systematic error.” Unlike random errors, systematic errors are “errors that repeat themselves” due to a persistent property in the channel, such as an “interference 

signal with a certain frequency” or “equipment error.” Id. 

at col. 1, ll. 48–52. According to the ’662 patent, prior art 

methods did not reliably detect systematic errors, which 

“may result in all decompressed data becoming unusable.” 

Id. at col. 1, ll. 47–48, col. 2, ll. 12–16.

B. Solution of the ’662 Patent

The inventors of the ’662 patent recognized that the reason why systematic errors were able to persist undetected 

was because the prior art used the same, or “fixed,” generating function to process every block of data. Id. at col. 2, 

ll. 48–50. If a fixed generating function produced defective 

check data for a transmission that was corrupted with a 

given systematic error (e.g., first and fourth bit is erroneous in every data transmission), that fixed generating function would likely continue to produce the same defective 

check data every time that systematic error appeared. As 

a result, a “[systematic] error once not recognized as such, 

[wa]s continually not detected.” Id. at col. 1, ll. 57–59. 

To solve the problem of undetected systematic errors in 

the prior art systems, the inventors of the ’662 patent developed a method that varies the way check data is generated from time to time so that the same defective check 
KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH 7

data does not continue to be produced for the same type of 

persistent systematic error. Id. at col. 2, ll. 42–47. This 

way, “a variable checking function can almost always prevent the non-detection of repetitive errors.” Id. at col. 2, 

ll. 51–53. 

The ’662 patent discusses different ways of varying the 

way check data is generated to achieve this increased detection capability. One way is by varying the generating 

function used to produce the check data. For example, “[i]t 

is possible to vary the function completely for every n bits” 

by “loading a new algorithm (function f).” Id. at col. 4, ll. 

56–57. Another way to vary the generated check data is to 

vary the original data before it is fed into the generating 

device. The ’662 patent discusses different ways to accomplish this. In one embodiment, a “random number generator” is used that “adds random numbers to the user data.” 

Id. at col. 3, l. 66 – col. 4, l. 2. In another embodiment, the 

original data is varied through “permutation,” which “interchange[s] the bit position in a data block.” Id. at col. 5, 

ll. 60–61. One example of a permutation may involve the 

following: “bit 1 to position 2, bit 2 to position 4, bit 3 to 

position 1 and bit 4 to position 3.” Id. at col. 5, ll. 60–63. 

Based on this permutation, a data block of “1100” would 

transform into “0101.”

The appealed claims are limited to this last embodiment. Given that they all incorporate independent claim 

1, all four claims of the ’662 patent are reproduced below. 

1. A device for producing error checking based on 

original data provided in blocks with each block 

having plural bits in a particular ordered sequence, comprising:

a generating device configured to generate 

check data; and
8 KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH

a varying device configured to vary original 

data prior to supplying said original data to 

the generating device as varied data;

wherein said varying device includes a permutating device configured to perform a 

permutation of bit position relative to said 

particular ordered sequence for at least 

some of the bits in each of said blocks making up said original data without reordering any blocks of original data.

2. The device according to claim 1, wherein the 

varying device is further configured to modify

the permutation in time.

3. The device according to claim 2, wherein the 

varying is further configured to modify the permutation based on the original data.

4. The device according to claim 3, wherein the 

permutating device includes a table in which 

subsequent permutations are stored.

Id. at claims 1–4 (emphases added).

As recited above, the device of claim 2 varies the way 

check data is generated by applying a different permutation to different data blocks. Claim 3, which depends from 

claim 2, further recites how the permutation is modified 

(i.e., “based on the original data”). Claim 4, which depends 

from claim 3, even further specifies that different permutations are stored in a table. By varying the original data 

supplied to the check data generator in different ways, the 

device of the appealed claims significantly decreases the 

likelihood that defective check data will be generated for 

successive data blocks such that a given systematic error 

would continue to escape detection. See id. at col. 2, ll. 42–

47. 
KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH 9

DISTRICT COURT’S INELIGIBILITY DECISION

The district court granted Appellees’ motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) alleging that all 

four claims (claims 1–4) of the ’662 patent are ineligible under § 101. J.A. 9. Applying the two-step framework laid 

out in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 

(2014), the district court found all claims of the ’662 patent 

to be ineligible because they are directed to an abstract 

idea and contain no saving inventive concept. Though KPN 

now appeals the ineligibility decision only for dependent 

claims 2–4, the focus of the district court’s analysis was on 

independent claim 1.

At step one of Alice, the district court found that the 

claims were directed to the “abstract idea of reordering 

data and generating additional data,” likening the asserted 

claims to data manipulation claims found ineligible in TwoWay Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 

874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017), RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017), Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 

(Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Intellectual Ventures”), and Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 

F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014). J.A. 23. Based on these cases, 

the district court explained that the claims of the ’662 patent are abstract because they do “not say how data is reordered, how to use reordered data, how to generate 

additional data, how to use additional data, or even that 

any data is transmitted.” J.A. 8. The district court repeated a similar concern for the dependent claims, explaining that they do “not say how the permutations are 

modified in time or modified based on the data.” J.A. 24.

At step two of Alice, the district court entertained the 

possibility that patent-eligible subject matter is recited in 

the specification, but ultimately concluded that the claims 

are ineligible because KPN’s “purported inventive concept 
10 KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH

[was] not captured in the claims.” J.A. 26–27 (emphasis in 

original). 

KPN timely appealed the district court’s ineligibility 

decision with respect to dependent claims 2–4, not independent claim 1.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(1).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review the district court’s grant of judgment on the 

pleadings under Rule 12(c) by following the procedural law 

of the regional circuit. Allergan, Inc. v. Athena Cosmetics, 

Inc., 640 F.3d 1377, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Under Third 

Circuit law, we have “plenary review” of the district court’s 

order dismissing KPN’s claims pursuant to Rule 12. Green 

v. Fund Asset Mgmt., L.P., 245 F.3d 214, 220 (3d Cir. 2001). 

Under this standard, we must “view the facts presented in 

the pleadings and the inferences to be drawn therefrom in 

the light most favorable to the . . . non-moving party”

(KPN) and “affirm the [d]istrict [c]ourt’s judgment only if 

the plaintiffs would not be entitled to relief under any set 

of facts that could be proved.” Id. 

Patent eligibility under § 101 is a question of law that 

may contain underlying issues of fact. Interval Licensing 

LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 

2018)). We review an ultimate conclusion on patent eligibility de novo. Id.

DISCUSSION

Section 101 defines patent-eligible subject matter as 

“any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or 

composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement 

 

1 KPN states that it “statutorily disclaimed Claim 1 

for reasons unrelated to this appeal.” Appellant’s Br. at 15 

n.5.
KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH 11

thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas, however, are not patentable. 

Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 

U.S. 66, 70–71 (2012). These categories of subject matter 

have been excluded from patent-eligibility because they 

represent “the basic tools of scientific and technological 

work.” Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, 

Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013). The “concern that drives 

this exclusionary principle [is] one of pre-emption.” Alice, 

573 U.S. at 216. To determine whether claimed subject 

matter is patent-eligible, we apply the two-step framework 

explained in Alice, id. at 218. First, we “determine whether 

the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept” such as an abstract idea. Id. Second, if so, we “examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it 

contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the 

claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” 

Id. at 221 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72, 80). 

At step one of the Alice framework, we “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.” Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, 

LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). “In cases involving software innovations, this inquiry 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.’” Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat System, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 

1303 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft 

Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal 

quotation marks omitted)). Since Alice, we have found software inventions to be patent-eligible where they have 

made non-abstract improvements to existing technological 

processes and computer technology. See McRO, Inc. v. 

Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313–16

(Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims directed to a process for lip-
12 KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH

synching animated characters that used specific rules to 

automate a previously subjective manual process); Enfish, 

822 F.3d at 1337–39 (claims directed to a self-referential 

database that improved the way computers stored and retrieved data in memory); Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1304–06

(claims directed to generating a security profile that improved the ability of a computer system to identify potentially suspicious operations that it could not previously 

identify before); Ancora Techs. Inc. v. HTC America Inc., 

908 F.3d 1343, 1347–49 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (claims directed to 

storing a verification structure in a part of computer 

memory that is less vulnerable to hacking to improve security against unauthorized use of licensed software).

An improved result, without more stated in the claim,

is not enough to confer eligibility to an otherwise abstract 

idea. Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1305 (stating that as a “foundational patent law principle,” “a result, even an innovative 

result, is not itself patentable”). To be patent-eligible, the 

claims must recite a specific means or method that solves

a problem in an existing technological process. Compare 

Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1258 (finding claims related to 

wirelessly communicating regional broadcast content were 

directed to an ineligible abstract idea because “nothing in 

claim 1 . . . is directed to how to implement out-of-region 

broadcasting on a cellular telephone”), and Intellectual 

Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316 

(Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims related to email filtering 

were directed to an ineligible abstract idea where there was

“no restriction on how the result is accomplished” and the 

“mechanism . . . is not described”), with McRO, 837 F.3d at 

1307, 1313–14 (finding claims to be directed to a patenteligible non-abstract improvement in an existing technological process because the claims recited “specific” rules 

that allowed automation of a previously manual process of 

lip synching three-dimensional animated characters). 

In accordance with the above precedents, we conclude 

that appealed claims 2–4 of the ’662 patent are patent-
KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH 13

eligible because they are directed to a non-abstract improvement in an existing technological process (i.e., error 

checking in data transmissions). By requiring that the permutation applied to original data be modified “in time,” 

claim 2, which is incorporated into all appealed claims, recites a specific implementation of varying the way check 

data is generated that improves the ability of prior art error detection systems to detect systematic errors. See ’662 

patent at col. 2, ll. 51–53. 

This claimed technological improvement is akin to the 

type of non-abstract improvement we found to be patenteligible in Finjan. In Finjan, the claims at issue recited a 

method of providing computer security by generating a “security profile” that identifies suspicious code that performs 

“potentially hostile operations.” 879 F.3d at 1303–04. Unlike traditional systems that “simply look[ed] for the presence of known viruses,” the claimed method was able to 

identify “potentially dangerous or unwanted operations. 

Id. at 1304 (emphases added). Thus, we concluded that the 

claimed method was directed to a “non-abstract improvement” over the prior art because it employed “a new kind 

of file that enable[d] a computer security system to do 

things it could not do before.” Id. at 1305. Here, as in Finjan, the claimed invention is also directed to a non-abstract 

improvement because it employs a new way of generating 

check data that enables the detection of persistent systematic errors in data transmissions that prior art systems 

were previously not equipped to detect. 

Appellees argue that the claims are ineligible because 

they fail to recite a last application step that uses the generated check data to actually perform error detection. According to Appellees, without this last step tying the claims 

to a “concrete application,” the claims are doomed to abstraction. Appellees’ Br. at 18–21. We disagree. 

A claim that is directed to improving the functionality 

of one tool (e.g., error checking device) that is part of an 
14 KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH

existing system (e.g., data transmission error detection 

system) does not necessarily need to recite how that tool is 

applied in the overall system (e.g., perform error detection)

in order to constitute a technological improvement that is 

patent-eligible. Rather, to determine whether the claims 

here are non-abstract, the more relevant inquiry is 

“whether the claims in th[is] patent[ ] focus on a specific 

means or method that improves the relevant technology or 

are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is the 

abstract idea and merely invoke processes and machinery.” 

McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314; cf. Electric Power Group, LLC v. 

Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding 

claims to be directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea because “the focus of the claims [wa]s not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently 

abstract ideas that use computers as tools”).

In the present case, the appealed claims recite a sufficiently specific implementation (i.e., modifying the permutation applied to the original data “in time”) of an existing 

tool (i.e., check data generating device) that improves the 

functioning of the overall technological process of detecting 

systematic errors in data transmissions. See McRO, 837 

F.3d at 1313–16; Ancora, 908 F.3d at 1348–49. Importantly, the claims do not simply recite, without more,

the mere desired result of catching previously undetectable 

systematic errors, but rather recite a specific solution for 

accomplishing that goal—i.e., by varying the way check 

data is generated by modifying the permutation applied to 

different data blocks. Id. at 1349; Finjan, 879 F.3d at 

1305–06; SAP America Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 

1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In so doing, the claims sufficiently capture the inventors’ asserted technical contribution to the prior art by reciting how the solution specifically 

improves the function of prior art error detection systems.

Importantly, Appellees do not dispute that varying the 

way check data is generated provides an improvement to 

an existing technological process. Rather, their main 
KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH 15

argument is that this improvement is not adequately captured in the claims because the claims fail to tie the permutated data with the generation of new check data. Oral 

Arg. at 23:02–32; Appellees’ Br. at 29–34. We disagree. 

The appealed claims require that a “varying device” be 

configured to “vary original data prior to supplying said 

original data to the generating device as varied data,” and 

that the “generating device” be configured to “generate 

check data.” ’662 patent at claim 1 (emphasis added). In a 

“wherein” clause, claim 1 specifies how the original data is 

varied by the varying device: by including a “permutating 

device configured to perform a permutation” on the bits in 

each block making up “said original data.” Id. Thus, contrary to Appellees’ proposed reading, claim 1 logically requires that original data be varied by permutation before 

being supplied to the generating device as “varied data.” 

Appellees further contend that even if the claims connect the permutated data with the generation of check 

data, the appealed claims are not directed to a patent-eligible technological improvement because the specification 

does not mention any technological benefit of using permutations to generate check data.2 But, even assuming that 

the law required the specification to discuss a technological 

benefit of the purported invention, as Appellees suggest, 

Appellees’ argument still fails because it does not account 

for the specification as a whole. The specification states 

that “a variable checking function,” as opposed to a “normal 

(fixed) checking function,” “can almost always prevent the 

non-detection of repetitive errors.” ’662 patent at col. 2, ll. 

 

2 Though Appellees contend that KPN waived its argument that the specification discusses the technological 

benefits of the dependent limitations of claims 2–4, Appellees’ Br. at 35, we believe that it was adequately preserved 

in KPN’s Opposition Brief to Defendant’s 12(c) motion. See 

J.A. 428–49, 438. 
16 KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH

48–53. In a later section, it states that one way of providing 

a “variation value” is to use “different permutations.” Id. 

at col. 5, l. 65 – col. 6, l. 2. Thus, a review of the specification makes clear that modifying the permutation in time 

provides the technological benefit of preventing non-detection of repetitive errors, just like other variable generating 

functions.

Appellees contend that the district court correctly 

found that the claims on appeal are similar to the abstract 

“data manipulation” claims that we have held to be ineligible in prior cases. Appellees’ Br. at 27–29. We disagree. 

While the claims in those cases were arguably related to 

advances in computer technology, none were limited to a 

specific improvement in computer functionality. Absent 

sufficient recitation of how the purported invention improved the functionality of a computer, the “improvement”

captured by those claims was recited at such a level of result-oriented generality that those claims amounted to a 

mere implementation of an abstract idea on a computer, 

not the specific way to improve the functionality of a computer. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 

F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). While the patents in 

these cases may have claimed an improved result in a technical field, the claims failed to recite a specific enough solution to make the asserted technological improvement 

concrete. 

For example, in Digitech, the patented invention purportedly solved the problem of distortion that occurred 

when translating the display of an image from a source device to a different output device. 758 F.3d at 1347–48. The 

claimed solution took various device-dependent information and “combin[ed]” them into a “device profile.” Id. 

at 1351. Though the specification discussed using this device profile to correct for device-specific image distortions, 

id. at 1347–48, this asserted improvement in image processing was not specifically captured in the claims. In the 
KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH 17

preamble, the claimed method stated that the “device profile” was used “for capturing, transforming, or rendering an 

image.” Id. at 1351. But in the body, the claimed method 

failed to explain how the device-dependent information 

was actually used by the recited mathematical correlation 

to accomplish image distortion correction. Id. at 1350–51. 

Absent further elaboration, the claims were too abstract to 

capture the inventors’ purported technical contribution in 

correcting image distortion. As such, the claims amounted 

to no more than “taking existing information . . . and organizing this information into a new form.” Id. at 1351.

In RecogniCorp, the inventors purported to solve the 

problem of encoding images in a way that required “less 

memory and bandwidth.” 855 F.3d at 1324. While the 

claims used an “image code” to reproduce an image based 

on a mathematical operation, id., they did not adequately 

capture the inventors’ asserted technical contribution, because the claims recited no more than “standard encoding 

and decoding, an abstract concept long utilized to transmit 

information.” Id. at 1326 (emphasis added). Thus, we 

found that the claims merely amounted to an ineligible abstract process “for which computers are invoked merely as 

a tool,” not a software invention that actually improved the 

functioning of a computer. Id. at 1327 (emphasis added) 

(quoting Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336).

The ineligible claims in Two-Way Media and Intellectual Ventures, which are even less similar to the appealed 

claims, also fail to concretely capture any improvement in 

computer functionality. In Two-Way Media, we found that 

the claimed solution merely recited a series of abstract 

steps (“converting,” “routing,” “controlling,” “monitoring,” 

and “accumulating records”) using “result-based functional 

language” without describing how the goal of real-time load 

balancing was achieved. 874 F.3d at 1337. In Intellectual 

Ventures, the asserted technological improvement appeared to be accomplished by a user interacting with a 
18 KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH

generic user interface, and the claims recited nothing that 

“improve[d] the functions of the computers itself” or “provide[d] specific programming, tailored software,” or other 

“meaningful guidance.” 850 F.3d at 1339–42. 

Like the ineligible claims discussed above, the appealed claims also process data (by reordering information

via permutation). However, because these claims specifically recite how this permutation is used (i.e., modifying 

the permutation applied to different data blocks), and this 

specific implementation is a key insight to enabling prior 

art error detection systems to catch previously undetectable systematic errors, ’662 patent at col. 2, ll. 48–53, we 

conclude that the appealed claims are not directed to an 

abstract idea because they sufficiently capture the specific 

asserted improvement in detecting systematic errors contributed by the inventors of the ’662 patent. 

Having decided that all claims on appeal are not directed to an abstract idea at step one of Alice, we need not 

proceed to a step two analysis. Visual Memory, 867 F.3d at 

1262.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that claims 2–4 are 

not directed to an abstract idea at step one of Alice. We 

have considered Appellees’ remaining arguments and find 

them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we reverse the district 

court’s grant of Appellees’ Rule 12(c) motion finding that 

claims 2–4 are ineligible on the pleadings. 

REVERSED