NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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, INC., DBA AUDI OF 

AMERICA, INC., HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, 

LTD., HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., 

HYUNDAI MOTOR MANUFACTURING ALABAMA, 

LLC, NISSAN MOTOR COMPANY, LTD., NISSAN 

NORTH AMERICA, 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 Nos. 3:14-cv-02668-

CAB-WVG, 3:14-cv-02675-CAB-WVG, 3:14-cv-02677-CABWVG, 3:14-cv-02679-CAB-WVG, Judge Cathy Ann 

Bencivengo. 

______________________ 

Decided: April 19, 2017

______________________ 
2 WEST VIEW RESEARCH, LLC v. AUDI AG

ADAM SPENCER GARSON, Gazdzinski & Associates, PC, 

San Diego, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant.

GARLAND STEPHENS, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, 

Houston, TX, argued for all defendants-appellees. Defendant-appellee Tesla Motors, Inc. also represented by 

AUDREY LYNN MANESS. 

MICHAEL LENNON, Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP, New 

York, NY, for defendants-appellees Audi AG, Volkswagen 

AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Also represented 

by SUSAN A. SMITH, Washington, DC; MICHAEL N.

ZACHARY, Palo Alto, CA.

PAUL RICHARD STEADMAN, DLA Piper US LLP, Chicago, IL, for defendants-appellees Hyundai Motor Company, 

Ltd., Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC. Also represented by MATTHEW 

D. SATCHWELL. 

REGINALD J. HILL, Jenner & Block LLP, Chicago, IL, 

for defendants-appellees Nissan Motor Company, Ltd., 

Nissan North America, Inc. Also represented by PETER J.

BRENNAN, CHAD RAY; ADAM G. UNIKOWSKY, Washington, 

DC.

______________________ 

Before WALLACH, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

WALLACH, 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 (“the 
WEST VIEW RESEARCH, LLC v. AUDI AG 3

Asserted Claims”)1 of various patents (“the Patents-inSuit”) patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (2006). See 

In re W. View Research, LLC, Nos. 3:14-cv-2668-CABWVG, 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, Nos. 3:14-cv-2675-CAB-WVG, 3:14-cv2677-CAB-WVG, 3:14-cv-2679-CAB-WVG, 2015 WL 

9685577, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2015) (granting judgment on the pleadings for Tesla Motors, Inc.; Hyundai

Motor Company, Ltd., Hyundai Motor America, Inc., and 

Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC; and Nissan 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 eightyone 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. 

 
4 WEST VIEW RESEARCH, LLC v. AUDI AG

DISCUSSION

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). The 

Ninth Circuit reviews de novo 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 precedent. 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). We treat a district court’s 

“[p]atent eligibility [determination] under § 101 [a]s an 

issue of law which we review de novo.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1312 (Fed. 

Cir. 2016). 

II. The Patents-in-Suit Are Patent-Ineligible 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 quotation marks and citation omitted). Alice established the 

two-part framework for analyzing whether a patent claim 

is eligible under § 101. First, we determine whether the 

claims at issue are “‘directed to’ a patent-ineligible concept.” 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, considered ‘both individ-
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 54). 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. Id. col. 31 l. 35–

col. 32 l. 7. In relevant part, dependent claim 63 adds an 

additional limitation that allows the results to be wire2 Since the initiation of these appeals, claim 54 has 

been cancelled. See W. View Research, LLC v. Audi AG, 

Nos. 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. 

 
6 WEST VIEW RESEARCH, LLC v. AUDI AG

lessly transmitted to a user’s “portable personal electronic 

device” and allows a user’s device “to configure the userspecific data according to one or more data parameters or 

profiles specific to the user.” Id. col. 32 ll. 45, 62–64. 

Claim 29 of the ’156 patent indirectly depends from 

independent claim 25. See ’156 patent col. 27 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] context associated” with the 

user’s input and “selection 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 relating to 

a topical area.” Id. col. 27 ll. 14–17. 

1. The Patents-in-Suit Are Directed to an Abstract Idea

Under step one of the Alice test, claim 63 of the ’038 

patent and claim 29 of the ’156 patent recite an abstract 

idea. These claims do not go beyond receiving or collecting 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 response to the initial data query. See ’038 patent col. 32 

ll. 56–64 (claim 63); ’156 patent col. 27 ll. 14–17 (claim 

29). “[C]ollecting information, analyzing it, and displaying 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 1353. Moreover, 

the 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, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Therefore, claim 63 of 

the ’038 patent and claim 29 of the ’156 patent are directed to an abstract idea.
WEST VIEW RESEARCH, LLC v. AUDI AG 7

2. The Patents-in-Suit Lack an Inventive Concept

Under step two of the Alice test, claim 63 of the ’038 

patent and claim 29 of the ’156 patent lack an inventive 

concept that transforms the abstract idea into a patenteligible invention. The subject patents’ specification 

recites “many different arrangements for the disposition 

of various components within the system . . . , all of which 

are encompassed within the scope of the present invention.” ’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 (explaining that “[m]yriad speech recognition 

systems and algorithms are available”); ’156 patent col. 6 

ll. 5–7 (same). 

The content of the claims relevant here confirm what 

the specification recites. See ’038 patent col. 32 ll. 56–64 

(claim 63); ’156 patent col. 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)). 

Whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, the claims 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, conventional 
8 WEST VIEW RESEARCH, LLC v. AUDI AG

activities previously known to the industry” (internal 

quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted)). Without more, the representative claims fail to recite an inventive concept under 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 patentineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

CONCLUSION

We have considered WVR’s remaining arguments and 

find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, the final judgment

of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of 

California is 

AFFIRMED