N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

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

______________________ PLANET BINGO, LLC, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

VKGS LLC (doing business as Video King) , Defendant

- Appellee.

______________________

2013

- 1663

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan in No. 12

- CV

- 0219, Judge Robert Holmes Bell.

______________________

De cided: August 26, 2014

______________________

K

AREN J.S. F OUTS , Weiss & Moy, P.C., of Grand Ra pids, Michigan, argued for plaintiff

- appellant. With her on the brief were V ERONICA -A DELE R. C AO and K ENNETH M. M OTOLENICH -S ALAS , of Scottsdale, Arizona.

S TEVEN L. U NDERWOOD , Price Heneveld LLP, of Grand Rapids, Michigan, argued for defendant

- appellee. With him on the brief was M ATTHEW J. G IPSON

.

______________________PLANET BINGO , LLC v. VKGS LLC 2

Before T ARANTO , B RYSON , and H UGHES , Circuit Judges.

H UGHES , Circuit Judge

. Planet Bingo, LLC , owns two patents for computer

aided management of bingo games. After Planet Bin go filed an infringement action against VKGS, LLC , t he district court granted summary judgment of invalidity, concluding that the patents do not claim patentable

su bject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Because a straigh tforward application of the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) , leads us to the same result, we affirm.

I
Planet Bingo alleged that VKGS infr inged U.S. Pate nt No s . 6,398,646 and 6,656,045

. The ’045 patent states that it is a continuation of the ’646 patent. The claims at issue recite computer

- aided method s and systems for managing the g ame of bingo

. Generally, t he claims recite stor ing a player’s preferred sets of bingo numbers ; retriev ing one such set upon demand, and playing that set ; while simu ltaneously tracking the player ’ s sets
, tracking player payments, and verifying winning numbers. See, e.g. , ’646 patent col. 8 l. 45

– col. 9 l. 18 , col. 9 l. 33

– col. 10 l. 13

. V aria tions be tween the claims include display capabilities and options to p urchase sets of bingo numbers.
Following a Markman order, VKGS filed a motion for summary judgment that the asserted claims are directed to a patent

- ineligible concept

. Applying the majority opinion ’s approach in CLS Bank International v. Alice Corp. , 685 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (en banc) , the di strict court determined that “each method claim enco mpasses the abstract ide a of managing/playing the g ame of Bingo .” Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS, LLC , 961 F. Supp. 2d 840, 851 (W.D. Mich. 2013). T he district court determined that the use of a computer in the method claims “adds nothing more than the ability to manage

. . . BingoPLANET BINGO , LLC v. VKGS LLC 3

more efficiently

, ” i d. at 852
, and that “ the limitations of the system claims are the same as the limitations of the method claims that failed to result in an ‘inventive co ncept
, ’” i d. at 854

. T he district court stated that the system claims employ a computer “only for its mos t basic functions,” including “storing numbers, assigning identifiers, allowing for basic inputs and outputs, printing of a receipt, displaying of numbers, and/or matching

. . . for verification.” Id. at 854

– 55. T he court granted summary judgment on the grounds that all of the asserted claims

are invalid under § 101. Id. at 857. Planet Bingo appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

II We review the grant of summary judgment under the law of the regional circuit. Charles Mach. Works, Inc. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co. , 723 F.3d 1376, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Sixth Circuit reviews the grant or denial of summary judgment de novo. Tompkins v. Crown Corr, Inc. , 726 F.3d 830, 837 (6th Cir. 2013)

. We review de novo whether a claim is valid under § 101. In re Nuijten , 500 F.3d 1346, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2007)

. 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. The Supreme Court has “long held that this prov ision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable .” Alice

, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.

, 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116 (2013)); see also Gottschalk v. Benson , 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“ Phenomena of nature, though just disco vered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work. ”). Bu t the application of the se concepts to new and useful end s re main s eligible forPLANET BINGO , LLC v. VKGS LLC 4

patent protection. Id. at 2355. Accordingly, the Court has described a framework for identifying patent

- eligible claims, wherein a court must determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent

- ineligible concept and, if so, whether additional elements in the claims transform the claims into a patent

- eligible application. Id.

A
As a preliminary matter, we agree with the district court that there is n o meaningful distinction between the method and system claims or between the independent and dependent claims. See Planet Bingo , 961 F. Supp. 2d at 854, 857. The system claims recite the same basic process as the method claims, and the dependent claims

r ecite only slight variations o f the inde pendent claims

. In this case

, the claims at issue are drawn to patent

ineligible subject matter

. T he ’646 and ’045 patent s claim managing a b ingo game while allowing a player to repea tedly play the same sets of numbers in multi ple sessions. T he district court correctly concluded that managing the game of bingo “consists solely of mental steps which can be carried out by a human using pen and paper .” Planet Bingo , 961 F. Supp. 2d at 851

. Claim 7 of the ’646 pat ent
, for example, recites the steps of selecting, storing , and retrieving two sets of numbers, assigning a player ident ifier and a control number, and then comparing a winning set of bingo numbers with a selected set of bingo numbers. ’646 patent col. 9 l

. 33

– col. 10 l. 13

. Like the claims at issue in Benson

, not only can these steps be “ carried out in existing computers long in use ,” but they also can be “done mentally.” 409 U.S. at 67. Planet Bingo argues that “in real world use, literally thousands, i f not millions of preselected Bingo numbers are handled by the claimed computer program,” making it impossible for the invention to be carried out manually. Appellant’s Reply Br. 14. But the claimed inventions doPLANET BINGO , LLC v. VKGS LLC 5

not require as much. At most, the claims require “two sets of Bingo numbers,” “a player,” and “a manager.” ’646 patent col. 8 ll. 54

– 55, col. 9 l. 17; see also ’045 patent col. 9 ll. 5– 6. We need not, and do not, address whether a claimed invention requiring many transactions might tip the scales of patent eligibility, as the claims fall far short of capturing an invention that necessarily handles “tho usands, if not millions” of bingo numbers or players.
Moreover, the claims here are simil ar to the claims at issue in Bilski v. Kappos

, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010)

, and Alice

, 134 S. Ct. 2347, which the Supreme Court held were directed to “abstract ideas .” For example, the claims here recite methods and systems for “managing a game of Bingo.” ’646 patent col. 8 l. 46; s ee also id. col. 9 l. 33; ’045 patent col. 8 l. 64. This is similar to the kind of “ organi zing human activity ” at issue in Alice , 134 S. Ct. at 2356

. And, although the ’646 and ’045 patents are not drawn to the same subject matter at issue in Bilski and Alice , these claims are directed to the abstract idea of “solv[ing a] tampering problem and also minimiz[ing] other security risks” during bingo ticket purchases. Appellant’s Br. 10, 20. This is similar to the abstract ideas of “risk hedging” during “consumer transactions,” Bilski , 130 S. Ct. at 3231, and “mitigating settlement risk” in “financial transa ctions,” Alice , 134 S. Ct. at 2356

– 57, that the Su preme Court found ineligible. Thus , w e hold that the subject matter claimed in the ’646 and ’045 patents is directed to

an abstract idea

. B

Abstract ideas may still be patent

- eligible if they co ntain an “‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘ transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent

- eligible application

. ” A lice , 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Se rvs. v. Prometheus Lab s. , Inc. , 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294, 1298 (2012) ).PLANET BINGO , LLC v. VKGS LLC 6

Apart from managing a game of bingo, t he claims at issue also require “a computer with a central processing unit,” “a memory,” “an input and output terminal,” “a printer,” in some cases “a video screen

, ” and “a program

. . . enabling” the steps of manag ing a game of b ingo. ’646 patent col. 8 ll. 45

– 53, col. 9 l. 29

. These elements, in turn, select, stor e , and retriev e two sets of numbers, assign a player identifier and a control number, and then

compar e a winning set of bingo numbers with a selected set of bingo numbers.
“[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer am o unts to a mere instruction to ‘ imple men[t]’ an ab stract idea ‘on

. . . a computer,’

. . . that addition cannot impart patent eligibility. ” Alice , 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo , 132 S. Ct. at 1301). In this case, the claims recite a generic computer im plementation of the covered abstract idea.
Planet Bingo argues that the patents recite “significantly more” than an abstract idea because the invention includes “ complex computer code with three distinct sub parts. ” Appellant’s Br. 33, 38

. We disagree

. The ’646 and ’045 patents do not claim t he “accounting program,” “ticket program,” and “verification program” that Planet Bingo identifies in its briefs. Instead, the claims recite a program that is used for the generic functions of storing, retrieving, a nd verifying a chosen set of b ingo nu mbers against a winning set of b ingo numbers. And, a s was the case in Alice , “ the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is ‘[p]urely conventional.’ ” Alice

, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo

, 132 S. Ct. at 1298 ).
Accordingly, we hold that the claims at issue do not have an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘ transform’ the claimed subject matter into a patent

- eligible application

. III We have considered Planet Bingo’s remaining arg uments and find them unpersuasive. Applying the S u-PLANET BINGO , LLC v. VKGS LLC 7

preme Court’s precedents

, the claims at issue are invalid under § 101.

AFFIRMED