N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ WEST VIEW RESEARCH, LLC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Plaintiff
- Appellant v. AUDI AG, VOLKSWAGEN AG, VOLKSWAGEN

GROUP OF AMERICA, IN C., DBA AUDI OF AMERICA, INC., HYUND AI MOTOR COMPANY, LTD., HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., HYUNDAI MOTOR MANUFA CTURING ALABAMA,

LLC, NISSAN MOTOR COMPANY, LTD., NISSAN NORTH AMER ICA, INC., TESLA MOTORS, INC., Defendants
- Appellees

______________________ 2016 - 1947, 2016 - 1948, 2016 - 1949, 2016 - 1951

______________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in No s . 3:14 - cv - 02668 - CAB -W VG, 3:14
- cv - 02675 - CAB
- WVG, 3:14
- cv - 02677 - CAB
WVG, 3:14
- cv - 02679 - CAB
- WVG, Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo.

______________________ Decided: April 19 , 2017

______________________WEST VIEW RESEARCH , LLC v. AUDI AG 2 A DAM S PENCER G ARSON , Gazdzinski & Associates, PC, San Diego, CA, argued for plaintiff
- appellant. G ARLAND S TEPHENS , Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Houston, TX, argued for all defendant s- appellees. Defendant -appellee Tesla Motors , Inc. also represented by A UDREY L YNN M ANESS . M ICHAEL L ENNON , Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP, New York, NY, for defendant s- appellees Audi AG, Volkswagen AG , Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Also represented by S USAN A. S MITH , Washington, DC; M ICHAEL N. Z ACHARY , Palo Alto, CA. P AUL R ICHARD S TEADMAN , DLA Piper US LLP, Chic ago, IL, for defendant s- appellees Hyundai Motor Company, Ltd., Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Hyundai Motor Man ufacturing Alabama, LLC . Also represented by M ATTHEW D. S ATCHWELL . R EGINALD J. H ILL , Jenner & Block LLP, Chicago, IL, for defendant s- appellees Nissan Motor Company, Ltd., Nissan North America, Inc. Also represented by P ETER J. B RENNAN , C HAD R AY ; A DAM G. U NIKOWSKY , Washington, DC.

______________________ Before W ALLACH , C HEN , and S TOLL , Circuit Judges. W ALLACH , Circuit Judge. West View Research, LLC (“WVR”) appeals the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California’s judgment on the pleadings holding certain claims (“ theWEST VIEW RESEARCH , LLC v. AUDI AG 3 Asserted Claims ”) 1 of various patents (“ the Patents
- in
Suit ”) patent - ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (2006). See In re W. View Research, LLC , No s . 3: 14 - cv -2 668 - CAB
WVG, 3: 14 - cv - 2670 - CAB
- WVG, 3:14 - cv - 2675 - CAB
- WVG, 3:14 - cv - 2677 - CAB
- WVG, 3: 14 - cv - 2679 - CAB
- WVG , 2016 WL 3247891, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2016) (granting judgment on the pleadings for Audi AG, Volkswagen AG, and Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. dba Audi of America and entering final judgment); In re W. View Research, LLC , No s . 3:14 - cv - 2675 - CAB
- WVG, 3: 14 - cv 2677 - CAB
- WVG, 3:14 - cv - 2679 - CAB
- WVG, 2015 WL 9685577 , at *7 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2015) ( granting jud gment on the pleadings for Tesla Motors, Inc.; Hyundai Motor Company, Ltd., Hyundai Motor America, Inc., and Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC; and Ni ssan Motor Company, Ltd. and Nissan North America, Inc. ). WVR appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) (2012). We affirm .

1 The Asserted Claims refer to the following eighty
one claims : claims 9

– 11, 13

– 15, 17

– 19, 22

– 24, 29, and 38 of U.S. Patent No. 8,065,156 (“the ’156 patent”) ; claims 1 , 5, 9, 13, 20, 22, 25, and 27

– 30 of U.S. Patent No. 8,290,778 ; claims 1, 4, 6, 11, 17

– 19, 27, 30 , and 32 of U.S. Patent No. 8,296,146 ; claims 1, 12, 26, 34

– 35, 38, 49

– 50, 60 , and 62 of U.S. Patent No. 8, 712,777 ; claims 1, 3

– 4, 6, 8, 12, 22, 37, 42, 48, 75, and 77 of U.S. Patent No. 8,719,037 ; claims 1, 5, 12, 16, 22, 25

– 26, 32, 48, 54, 63, and 66 of U.S. Patent No. 8,719,038 (“the ’038 patent”) ; and claims 1, 10

– 11, 16, 23, 28

– 29, 34

– 35, 42, and 46

– 47 of U.S. Patent No. 8,781,839 . Appellant’s Br. 2. We identify representative claims below.WEST VIEW RESEARCH , LLC v. AUDI AG 4 D ISCUSSION I. Standard of Review We review a district court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings according to the law of the regional circuit, here the Ninth Circuit. Imation Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V., 586 F.3d 980, 984

– 85 (Fed. Cir. 2009). T he Ninth Circuit reviews de no vo a grant of judgment on the pleadings . Or. Nat . Desert Ass’n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 550 F.3d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 2008). Nevertheless, we review issues “unique to patent law,” including patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, consistent with our circuit’s prec edent. Madey v. Duke Univ. , 307 F.3d 1351, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted); see Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc. , 728 F.3d 1336, 1340

– 41 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (reviewing § 101 question under Federal Circuit precedent). W e treat a district court’s “[p] atent eligibility [determination] under § 101 [a] s an issue of law which we review de novo .” Intellectual Ve ntures I LLC v. Symantec Corp. , 838 F.3d 1307, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016) . II. The Patents
- in
- Suit A re Patent
- Ine ligible Under § 101 A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof,” 35 U.S.C. § 101, but “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable , ” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l , 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (internal quot ation marks and citation omitted) . Alice established the two - part framework for analyzing whether a patent claim is eligible under § 101. First, we determine whether t he claims at issue are “‘ directed to ’ a patent - ineligible co ncept . ” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A. , 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ( quoting Alice , 134 S. Ct. at 2355 ). If the claims are determined to be directed to a patent - ineligible concept , we next consider whether “ the particular elements of the claim, con sidered ‘ both indivi d-WEST VIEW RESEARCH , LLC v. AUDI AG 5 ually and as an ordered combination, ’ . . . add enough to ‘ transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent
- eligible application. ’” Id. ( quoting Alice , 134 S. Ct. at 2355 ). The Patents
- in
- Suit The Patents
- in
- Suit share a written description and generally disclose a system and subsystems that use computer hardware, software, and peripheral devices to collect, organize, and display information. See, e.g. , ’156 patent col. 5 ll. 28

– 60 , col. 8 l. 3

– col. 11 l. 7. During oral argument, WVR stated that claim 63 of the ’038 patent and claim 29 of the ’156 patent would be representative for purposes of the § 101 analysis . See Oral Arg . at 14: 45

– 15 : 05 , http://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx ?fl=2016
- 1947.mp3 . Thus, our analysis treats these claims as representative of the Asserted Claims. Claim 63 of the ’038 patent indirectly depends from independent claim 54. 2 See ’038 patent col. 32 ll. 56

– 64; see also id. col. 31 l. 35

– col. 32 l. 7 (claim 5 4) . Independent claim 54 recites a “computerized apparatus capable of interactive information exchange with a human user” via “a microphone,” “one or more processors,” a “touch -screen input and display device,” a “speech synthesis apparatus ” with “at least one speaker,” an “input apparatus , ” and a “computer program” that receives the user’s input and generates an audible or visual result. I d. col. 31 l. 35

– col. 32 l. 7. In relevant part, dependent c laim 63 adds an additional limitation that allows the results to be wir e2 Since the initiation of th ese appeal s , claim 54 has b een cancel l ed. See W. View Research, LLC v. Audi AG , No s . 2016 - 1947, - 1948, - 1949, - 1951, Docket No. 79 at 3 –4 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 28, 2017). Nevertheless, we describe the limitations of claim 54 to provide a complete analysis of claim 63 under § 101.WEST VIEW RESEARCH , LLC v. AUDI AG 6 lessly transmitted to a user’s “portable personal electronic device” and allows a user’s device “ to configure the user
specific data according to one or more data parameters or profiles specific to the user.” Id. col. 32 ll. 4 5, 62 –64 . Claim 29 of the ’156 patent indirectly depends from independent claim 25. See ’156 patent col. 2 7 ll . 14

– 17; see also id. col. 26 l. 55

– col. 27 l. 3 (claim 25) . Independent claim 25 recites a “[c]omputer readable apparatus” that can “receive input from a user via . . . function keys,” “forward the input to a remote networked server for determination of . . . [the] c ontext associated” with the user’s input and “select ion of advertising content,” and “present the received content” to the user. Id. col. 26 l. 55

– col. 27 l. 3. In relevant part, dependent claim 29 adds an additional limitation that tailors the available function keys based upon “ the user [’ s] selection relati ng to a topical area.” Id. col. 27 ll. 14

– 17.

1. The Patent s- in
- Suit A re Directed to an Abstract Idea U nder step one of the Alice test, claim 63 of the ’038 patent and c laim 29 of the ’156 patent recite an abstract idea. T hese claims do not go beyond receiving or collec ting data queries, analyzing the data query, retrieving and processing the information constituting a response to the initial data query, and generating a visual or audio r esponse t o the initial data query. See ’038 patent col. 32 ll. 56 –6 4 (claim 63) ; ’156 patent col. 27 ll. 14

– 17 (claim 29) . “ [C] ollecting information, analyzing it, and displa ying certain results of the collection and analysis” are “a familiar class of claims ‘directed to’ a patent
- ineligible concept .” Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 13 53 . Moreover, t he claims here are unlike those in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp . , where “the plain focus of the claims [ was ] on an improvement to the computer functionality itself .” 822 F.3d 1327, 133 6 (Fed. Cir. 2016). T herefore, claim 63 of the ’038 patent and claim 29 of the ’156 patent are d irected to an abstract idea .WEST VIEW RESEARCH , LLC v. AUDI AG 7 2. The Patent s- in
- Suit Lack an Inventive Concept U nder step two of the Alice test, claim 63 of the ’038 patent and claim 29 of the ’156 patent lack an inventive concept that transform s the abstract idea into a patent
eligible invention. T he subject patents’ specification recite s “many different arrangements for the disposition of various components within the syst em . . . , all of which are encompassed within the scope of the present inve ntion.” ’038 patent col. 9 ll. 29

– 34; ’156 patent col. 7 l. 64

– col. 8 l. 2 (same) . Yet, the components involved in the “many different arrangements” are generic . See , e.g. , ’038 patent col. 7 ll. 17

– 20 (“the input device 102 of the present embodiment is a touch
- sensitive keypad and/or display screen of the type well known in the electrical arts”) ; ’156 patent col. 5 ll. 52

– 55 (same); see also ’038 patent col. 7 ll. 37

– 38 ( explain ing that “ [m] yriad speech recognition systems and algorithms are available ”) ; ’156 patent col. 6 ll. 5

– 7 (same) . The content of the claim s relevant here confirm what the specification recites. See ’038 patent col. 32 ll. 56

– 64 (claim 63); ’156 patent co l. 27 ll. 14

– 17 (claim 29). If a patent uses generic computer components to implement an invention, it fails to recite an inventive concept under Alice step two. See, e.g. , Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc. , 811 F.3d 1314, 1324

– 25 (Fed . Cir. 2016) (explaining that “generic computer components such as an ‘interface,’ ‘network,’ and ‘database’ . . . do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement” (citations omitted)). W hether analyzed individually or as an ordered co mbination, the cla ims recite conventional elements at a high level of generality and do not constitute an inventive concept. See In re TLI Commc’ns LLC v. Automotive, L.L.C. , 823 F.3d 607, 614

– 15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ( cataloguing cases finding ineligibility under Alice step two where the claims recited “well- understood, routine, conventionalWEST VIEW RESEARCH , LLC v. AUDI AG 8 activities previously known to the industry” (internal quotation marks, brackets , and citation omitted) ). Without more , the representative claim s fail to recite an i nventive concept unde r Alice step two . Because we conclude that the Asserted Claims of the Patents
- in
- Suit do not satisfy Alice’s two - step test, they are patent
ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. C ONCLUSION We have considered WVR ’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasiv e. Accordingly, the final judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California is AFFIRMED