NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

AMAZON.COM, INC., GOOGLE LLC, WALMART, 

INC.,

Defendants-Appellees

---------------------------------------------

GOOGLE LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED,

Defendant-Appellant

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant

______________________ 

2022-1932, 2022-1933, 2022-1934, 2022-1935

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California in Nos. 4:15-cv-05446-JST, 

4:17-cv-01138-JST, 4:17-cv-03022-JST, 4:17-cv-03023-JST, 

Judge Jon S. Tigar.

Case: 22-1932 Document: 59 Page: 1 Filed: 02/01/2024
2 EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 

______________________ 

Decided: February 1, 2024

______________________ 

JOHN BRUCE CAMPBELL, McKool Smith, P.C., Austin, 

TX, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by 

JOSHUA WRIGHT BUDWIN, JAMES ELROY QUIGLEY, JOEL 

LANCE THOLLANDER. 

 CHARLES KRAMER VERHOEVEN, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for defendantappellee Google LLC. Also represented by JOCELYNE MA,

DAVID ANDREW PERLSON; DEEPA ACHARYA, Washington, 

DC. 

 GABRIEL K. BELL, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC, argued for all defendants-appellees. Defendantappellee Amazon.com, Inc. also represented by RICHARD 

GREGORY FRENKEL, DOUGLAS ETHAN LUMISH, Menlo Park, 

CA; JOSEPH HYUK LEE, Costa Mesa, CA; AMIT MAKKER, San 

Francisco, CA; JEFFREY H. DEAN, Amazon.com, Inc., Seattle, WA. 

 MARK CHRISTOPHER FLEMING, Wilmer Cutler Pickering 

Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, for defendant-appellee 

Walmart, Inc. 

 ______________________ 

Before CHEN, BRYSON, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

STOLL, Circuit Judge. 

Eolas Technologies Inc. appeals from the United States 

District Court for the Northern District of California’s summary judgment holding the asserted claims of Eolas’s U.S. 

Patent No. 9,195,507 invalid for claiming ineligible subject 

matter. Because we agree with the district court’s conclusion, we affirm.

Case: 22-1932 Document: 59 Page: 2 Filed: 02/01/2024
EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 3

BACKGROUND

I 

The ’507 patent claims priority from a patent filed in 

1994. The ’507 patent specification notes that the limited 

processing power of a typical client computer and the low 

bandwidth of the Internet prohibited most users from interacting with large data objects on the Internet. See ’507 

patent col. 5 ll. 39–52, col. 6 ll. 22–33. The specification describes the present invention as taking advantage of distributed hypermedia environments, such as that provided

by the World Wide Web, and harnessing the remote computing power made available by distributed computing.1 

Id. col. 6 ll. 57–67; see also id. col. 7 ll. 1–6. 

The specification explains that tasks that would normally be resource or bandwidth-intensive for a single computer—such as rendering large images or calculating 

spreadsheet cells—can be performed more effectively with 

distributed computing. For example, a new viewpoint of a 

large image or an updated calculation for a large spreadsheet can be computed on a remote computer and then sent 

to the client computer for display. See id. col. 7 ll. 1–33.

Figure 5, shown below, illustrates an embodiment of 

the invention.

1 “Distributed” describes objects or processes that 

are located and/or processed across multiple computers on 

a network. See, e.g., ’507 patent col. 5 ll. 29–34; see Eolas 

Techs. Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-01038, 

2016 WL 7155294, at *8 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2016) (Claim 

Construction Op.) (construing “distributed application” to 

mean an “application that is broken up and performed 

among two or more computers”). 

Case: 22-1932 Document: 59 Page: 3 Filed: 02/01/2024
4 EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 

Id. Fig. 5. In this embodiment, a browser client 208 on the 

user’s computer requests and parses through a data object 

(e.g., hypermedia document 212),2 and identifies an application for the application client 210 to invoke in order to

interact with the data object. See id. col. 9 ll. 4–20, col. 9 

ll. 29–33. The application client 210 communicates with 

the distributed network 206 (e.g., World Wide Web) to access the data object located on a server computer 204. Id.

col. 9 ll. 34–40. Upon receipt of the data object from the 

application client 210, the browser client 208 displays the 

data object on the client computer 200. Id. col. 9 ll. 54–57; 

see also id. col. 9 l. 65–col. 10 l. 3. The specification also 

describes an example of an application performing multidimensional image visualization. Id. col. 9 ll. 34–35. In this 

2 A “hypermedia document” is a document presented 

to a user in a computer system in which “the user is able to 

click on images, sound icons, video icons, etc., that link to 

other objects of various media types, such as additional 

graphics, sound, video, text, or hypermedia or hypertext 

documents.” ’507 patent col. 2 ll. 22–30.

Case: 22-1932 Document: 59 Page: 4 Filed: 02/01/2024
EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 5

example, application server 220 performs the rendering 

and transformation calculations as the user interacts with 

the three-dimensional data object, with application client 

210 updating the user’s view with each new viewpoint calculation. Id. col. 10 ll. 34–39, ll. 46–54. The specification 

describes a preferred embodiment in which the user interacts with the three-dimensional data object “within, or adjacent to, a window generated by browser client 208 that 

contains a display of hypermedia document 212.” Id. col. 9 

ll. 59–61.

According to the ’507 patent, having the application 

server 220 use the computing resources of the server computer 204, as described in the three-dimensional visualization example, is much faster than having the application 

client 210 executing on the client computer 200. Id. col. 10 

ll. 60–64.

Eolas argued before the district court that there is no 

substantial difference between method claims 32, 37, and 

39 and system claims 19, 24, and 26. The district court 

agreed and determined these method claims were representative of the system claims. See Eolas Techs. Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 17-cv-03022, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

243302, at *53–54 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2022) (Summary 

Judgment Op.). Representative independent claim 32 recites: 

32. A method, performed by a server computer connected to the World Wide Web distributed hypermedia network on the Internet, for disseminating 

interactive content via the World Wide Web distributed hypermedia network on the Internet, the 

method comprising: 

A. receiving, by the server computer, a request for information; and

B. transferring, by the server computer, 

the information onto the World Wide Web 

Case: 22-1932 Document: 59 Page: 5 Filed: 02/01/2024
6 EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 

distributed hypermedia network on the Internet, wherein:

(i) a World Wide Web browser on a 

client computer connected to the 

World Wide Web distributed hypermedia network has been configured 

with a plurality of different interactive-content applications, each said 

interactive-content application being configured to enable a user to 

interact, within one or more World 

Wide Web pages, with at least part 

of one or more objects while at least 

part of each of said one or more objects is displayed to the user within 

at least one of said one or more 

World Wide Web pages, and

(ii) at least part of the information 

is configured to allow the World 

Wide Web browser on the client 

computer to: 

a. detect at least part of an object to 

be displayed in a World Wide Web 

page, and

b. cause a display of the World 

Wide Web page to a user,

(iii) the World Wide Web browser 

has been configured to:

a. select an interactive-content application, based upon the information, from among the different 

interactive-content applications, 

and

Case: 22-1932 Document: 59 Page: 6 Filed: 02/01/2024
EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 7

b. automatically invoke the selected interactive-content application to enable the user to employ 

the selected interactive-content application to interact within the 

World Wide Web page with at least 

part of the object while at least part 

of the object is displayed to the user 

within the World Wide Web page, 

wherein the automatically invoked 

interactive-content application has 

been configured to operate as part 

of a distributed application configured to enable a user to perform the 

interaction through the use of communications sent to and received 

from at least a portion of the distributed application located on two 

or more distributed application 

computers connected to the World 

Wide Web distributed hypermedia 

network on the Internet, the two or 

more distributed application computers being remote from the client 

computer.

’507 patent col. 23 l. 25–col. 24 l. 2.

Eolas argues that independent claim 45 is patent eligible for additional reasons not present in representative 

claim 32. In particular, Eolas emphasizes that claim 45 

recites additional limitations of generating and sending 

computer commands to perform viewing transformations: 

45. A method performed by one or more computers 

for coordinating distributed processing to enable 

dissemination of interactive content to a client 

computer, the method comprising: 

Case: 22-1932 Document: 59 Page: 7 Filed: 02/01/2024
8 EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 

a. coordinating by the one or more computers processing of at least part of a distributed application to perform at least one 

task,

b. coordinating by the one or more computers communications sent to and received 

from at least a portion of the distributed 

application located on two or more separate 

computers connected to the World Wide 

Web distributed hypermedia network to 

enable the separate computers to work together to perform the at least one task, 

wherein at least part of the distributed application has been implemented to be part 

of a distributed interactive-content application configured to enable a user to interact 

with at least part of an object, displayed 

within a World Wide Web page by the client computer, and

c. generating and sending by the one or 

more computers commands over a network 

to coordinate activity of the separate computers working together to perform viewing transformations to enable the 

interaction with at least part of the object, 

wherein:

a. the two or more separate computers are remote from the client 

computer containing a World Wide 

Web browser configured to cause 

the display of the World Wide Web 

page,

b. the World Wide Web browser has 

been configured with a plurality of 

different interactive-content applications, each said interactiveCase: 22-1932 Document: 59 Page: 8 Filed: 02/01/2024
EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 9

content application being configured to enable a user to interact, 

within one or more World Wide 

Web pages, with at least part of one 

or more objects while at least part 

of each of said one or more objects 

is displayed to the user within at 

least one of said one or more World 

Wide Web pages,

c. the World Wide Web browser has 

been enabled, by information that 

has been transferred onto the 

World Wide Web distributed hypermedia network, to detect at least 

part of the object and to display the 

world Wide Web Page,

d. the World Wide Web browser 

has been configured to select an interactive-content application, 

based upon the information, from 

among the different interactivecontent applications, and automatically invoke the selected interactive-content application,

e. the automatically invoked interactive-content application has been 

configured to operate as part of the 

distributed interactive-content application.

Id. col. 24 l. 56–col. 25 l. 37.

II

Eolas filed suit against Amazon.com, Inc.; Google LLC; 

and Walmart, Inc. (collectively, “Appellees”) in the Eastern 

District of Texas for infringing certain claims of the ’507 

Case: 22-1932 Document: 59 Page: 9 Filed: 02/01/2024
10 EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 

patent. The cases were later transferred to the Northern 

District of California.

During claim construction, the district court construed 

the claim limitation “World Wide Web browser on a client 

computer” to not require that the interactive content applications be internal to the World Wide Web browser.3 See 

Claim Construction Op., 2016 WL 7155294, at *12–13. In 

other words, the district court determined that the claim 

did not require relocation of the interactive content application into the World Wide Web browser.

Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the claims 19, 24, 26, 32, 37, 39, and 45 are ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applying the 

two-step test set forth in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), the district court concluded 

that under Alice step one, the asserted claims are “directed 

to the abstract idea of enabling interactivity with remote 

objects on a client computer browser using distributed computing.” Summary Judgment Op., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

243302, at *20. The district court determined under Alice

step two that the purported inventive concepts of distributed computing and improved security, whether 

3 The court specifically construed the claim term 

“the World Wide Web browser on a client computer” to 

mean “a client computer application, separate from the interactive-content application, that allows a user to access 

the World Wide Web.” Claim Construction Op., 2016 WL 

7155294, at *13 (emphasis added). This separation cuts 

against the notion that the interactive content application 

must be in the browser. Also, the court’s construction is 

consistent with the title of the ’507 patent, which refers to 

“Automatically Invoking External Application” and Figure 8A of the preferred embodiment, which refers to 

launching an external application at step 290. ’507 patent 

Fig. 8A, col. 15 ll. 4–7, ll. 17–18.

Case: 22-1932 Document: 59 Page: 10 Filed: 02/01/2024
EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 11

individually or as an ordered combination, embodied the 

abstract idea, and thus could not transform the claim beyond the abstract idea as required to demonstrate eligibility under Alice step two. Id. at *60–61. It also explained 

that the remaining aspects of the asserted claims lacked an 

inventive concept to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application because they cite generic computer 

components and functions. See id. at *61–62. The district 

court therefore held the asserted claims ineligible under 

§ 101 and granted summary judgment in Appellees’ favor. 

Id. at *67–68. 

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

§ 1295(a)(1).

DISCUSSION

When reviewing a district court’s grant of summary 

judgment, we apply the law of the regional circuit. See Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1146 

(Fed. Cir. 2016). Summary judgment in the Ninth Circuit 

is appropriate when, after drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, there remains no 

genuine issue of material fact precluding the grant of summary judgment. See Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo 

Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 

2011). 

Patent eligibility under § 101 is a question of law that

may involve underlying questions of fact. See Mortg. 

Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 

1314, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We review the district court’s 

ultimate conclusion on eligibility de novo. See Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1338 

(Fed. Cir. 2017). We look to the two-step test articulated 

in Alice to determine whether a claim is eligible for patenting under § 101. See 573 U.S. at 217–18. For Alice step 

one, we must assess whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, namely a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea. Id. at 217. If 

Case: 22-1932 Document: 59 Page: 11 Filed: 02/01/2024
12 EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 

the answer is yes, we then consider the claim elements, 

both individually and as an ordered combination, to determine whether they contain an “inventive concept” sufficient to “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patenteligible application.” Id. at 217–18 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72–

73, 78 (2012)). In other words, we must determine whether 

the claims recite additional features beyond the abstract 

idea, rendering the claims eligible for patenting. Those additional features must be more than “well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79–80. 

Starting with Alice step one, the district court determined that representative claim 32 of the ’507 patent “is 

directed to the abstract concept of enabling interactivity 

with remote objects on a client computer browser using distributed computing.” Summary Judgment Op., 2022 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 243302, at *27.

On appeal, Eolas argues that this characterization is 

overgeneralized in that it fails to acknowledge the claim’s 

recitation of objects on the World Wide Web. See Appellant’s Br. 43–44. We agree. Eolas’s claims are not directed 

to computers, networks, or interacting with content generally; rather, they recite interacting with content on the 

World Wide Web. For example, the body of claim 32 recites 

certain configuration requirements of a World Wide Web 

browser, World Wide Web pages, and the World Wide Web 

distributed hypermedia network. The district court’s characterization “disregard[s] th[e]se express claim elements”

in a way that is “‘untethered from the claim language.’” 

TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc., 978 F.3d 1278, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 

2020) (quoting Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 

1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); see also Enfish, 822 F.3d 

at 1337 (warning against “describing the claims at such a 

high level of abstraction” in the § 101 analysis). The specification further supports our understanding of what the 

claimed invention is directed to in that it describes 

Case: 22-1932 Document: 59 Page: 12 Filed: 02/01/2024
EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 13

problems specific to the World Wide Web and explains how 

the invention purports to solve them.

At the same time, we are concerned that the district 

court’s characterization of what the claims are directed to 

is too specific in that the court included implementation details—i.e., using distributed computing—that may be best 

left for consideration under Alice step two. See Summary 

Judgment Op., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 243302, at *60–61. 

In narrowly articulating what the invention was directed 

to under Alice step one and concluding that this subject 

matter was abstract, the district court eliminated any opportunity to consider whether distributed computing transforms the invention into eligible subject matter under Alice

step two. See BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 

1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“After identifying an ineligible 

concept at step one, we ask at step two ‘[w]hat else is there 

in the claims before us?’” (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78

(modification in BSG)). 

We nonetheless agree with the district court that, even 

under our slightly modified view of what the claims are directed to, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under 

Alice step one. Simply put, interacting with data objects 

on the World Wide Web is an abstraction. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714–15 (Fed. Cir. 

2014). 

Eolas contends that it developed new functionality that 

was not previously available and thus its claims are eligible under § 101. We are not persuaded by this particular 

argument. At best, the specification explains that prior art 

systems provided users “very little, if any, interaction with 

the[] data objects” on the World Wide Web due to the constraints of client computers, ’507 patent col. 6 ll. 22–34, 

and thus “it [wa]s desirable to allow a user to manipulate 

data objects in an interactive way to provide the user with 

a better understanding of information presented and to allow the user to accomplish a wider variety of tasks,” id.

Case: 22-1932 Document: 59 Page: 13 Filed: 02/01/2024
14 EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 

col. 6 ll. 37–41. But an abstract idea that is new or groundbreaking is not any less abstract. See Ultramercial, 

772 F.3d at 714 (rejecting argument that “abstract ideas 

remain patent-eligible under § 101 as long as they are new 

ideas, not previously well known, and not routine activity”).

Case law from the Supreme Court and this court suggests that claims purporting to improve a technological 

process are not directed to an abstract idea under § 101. 

See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA 

Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2017). According to 

Eolas, the ’507 patent claims capture “specific technological solutions to [three] specific technological problems,” 

and thus, the claims are not abstract under Alice step one. 

Appellant’s Br. 25. First, Eolas asserts that at the time of 

the invention, user interaction with data objects was limited to downloading data objects “onto their client computers and then launching external applications that would 

[then] permit manipulation” of the data objects. Appellant’s Br. 23. Eolas asserts that with the claimed invention, “rather than downloading objects to be manipulated 

with outside-the-Web-browser helper applications, objects 

are embedded within Web pages and Web browsers are 

configured with applications that can be automatically invoked to permit manipulation while the object is displayed 

within the Web page.” Appellant’s Br. 24. In other words, 

Eolas claims that inside-the-browser applications facilitate 

object manipulation. Second, Eolas contends that in addition to relocating applications to reside within the Web 

browser, the claims address scalability with its distributed 

computing configuration: “new applications are broken up 

and distributed, with one part working in the browser and 

other parts on remote distributed application computers.” 

Id. Third, Eolas contends that, by invoking only applications that are configured to be used with the Web browser, 

the invention improves security. Appellant’s Br. 24–25. In 

the alternative, Eolas relies on these same three aspects of 

Case: 22-1932 Document: 59 Page: 14 Filed: 02/01/2024
EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 15

the invention as alleged inventive concepts that would render the claims eligible under Alice step two. See Appellant’s Br. 55–58. As noted above, Alice step two requires 

determining whether an element, or a combination of elements, in the claim contains an inventive concept sufficient 

to “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible 

application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo, 

566 U.S. at 72, 79). Finally, Eolas contends that claim 45’s 

additional limitation of “viewing transformations” provides

an inventive concept that renders claim 45 patent-eligible. 

Appellant’s Br. 35.

Whether analyzed as technological improvements under Alice step 1 or as inventive concepts under Alice step 2, 

none of Eolas’s three alleged concepts for representative 

claim 32 make the claim eligible. We likewise conclude 

that claim 45 does not recite additional features beyond the 

claimed abstract idea that render the claim eligible for patenting. We consider each of Eolas’s alleged inventive concepts in turn below. 

First, Eolas contends that relocation of the interactive 

content application from outside to inside the World Wide 

Web browser itself was an important new structural 

change that improved interactivity with the World Wide 

Web. But we do not see this limitation anywhere in the 

claims and thus it cannot satisfy Alice step two. And Eolas 

did not challenge the district court’s claim construction, 

which does not require that the interactive content application be internal to the World Wide Web browser, on appeal. Furthermore, Eolas did not present this alleged 

inventive concept of relocating the interactive application 

in the web browser in its § 101 arguments before the district court below. Thus, not only do the claims not recite 

locating the interactive content applications within the 

browser, but it appears that Eolas waived this argument 

by not presenting it below. Relocation of the interactive 

content application within the web browser is therefore not 

Case: 22-1932 Document: 59 Page: 15 Filed: 02/01/2024
16 EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 

an inventive concept that renders the claims eligible under 

Alice step 2. 

Second, Eolas asserts that the claims recite the inventive concept of distributed processing between the application in the browser and applications on remote 

distributed computers. But it is undisputed that, at the 

time of the invention, distributed processing was well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See Summary 

Judgment Op., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 243302, at *61 n.12; 

Appellees’ Br. 54. For example, one of the named inventors 

of the ’507 patent confirmed that the inventors did not invent distributed computing, servers, or applications. 

J.A. 16647, 16649 (Martin Depo. at 63:9–18, 65:8–24).

Moreover, as the district court explained, the claims 

merely describe a desired function or outcome without 

providing details of the claimed distributed processing. 

Specifically, claim 32 requires an automatically invoked interactive-content application “configured to operate as part 

of a distribution application” that “enable[s] a user” to interact with data objects within a World Wide Web Page. 

’507 patent col. 23 ll. 54–62. And the rest of the claim recites that “a portion of the distributed application [is] located on two or more distributed application computers 

connected to the World Wide Web distributed hypermedia 

network on the Internet [with] the two or more distributed 

application computers being remote from the client computer.” Id. col. 23 l. 61–col. 24 l. 2. The claim thus recites 

distributed processing, but does not specify how the 

claimed configuration for distributed processing is any different than generic distributed processing. For example, 

the claim does not specify how the processing is distributed 

among the distributed application computers. Nor does it 

require distributed processing among applications internal 

and external to the web browser. Without more, the distributed processing as claimed is not an inventive concept 

that transforms claim 32 into a patent-eligible invention. 

Case: 22-1932 Document: 59 Page: 16 Filed: 02/01/2024
EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 17

Third, Eolas alleges its claims alleviate certain security 

concerns existing at the time of the invention by limiting 

the invoked interactive content applications to those configured to operate within the Web browser. But this alleged inventive concept is not within the scope of the claims 

because, as noted above, the claims do not actually require 

that the interactive content applications be located within 

the browser. Indeed, the claims merely recite that the 

browser invokes interactive-content applications (which, 

under the district court’s construction, are separate from—

i.e., external to—the “World Wide Web browser”). See ’507 

patent col. 23 ll. 50–53 (“[T]he World Wide Web 

browser . . . select[s] an interactive-content application . . . 

from among the different interactive-content applications.”); see also id. Title (“Distributed Hypermedia Method 

and System for Automatically Invoking External Application Providing Interaction and Display of Embedded Objects within a Hypermedia Document”); id. col. 15 ll. 4–7, 

ll. 15–30. Thus, the claims are not eligible under either Alice step one or Alice step two based on this contention.

Finally, turning to claim 45, Eolas asserts that the additional limitation requiring remote computers to generate 

and send computer commands to perform “viewing transformations” offers a 3D view that improves a computer network system’s specific technical features or operations. 

Appellant’s Br. 35. This additional limitation does not 

transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible claim. 

The district court construed “viewing transformations” to 

mean “operations performed on data for visual display to a 

user.” Claim Construction Op., 2016 WL 7155294, at *16. 

This broad construction, which is unchallenged on appeal,

encompasses visual display generally, something wellknown in the art at the time of the invention. See, e.g., 

J.A. 16655–56 (Martin Depo. 145:18–146:2) (Inventor Martin denying having invented sending commands to a remote server to perform visualization processes); 

J.A. 12150–51 (prior art publication describing sending 

Case: 22-1932 Document: 59 Page: 17 Filed: 02/01/2024
18 EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 

scientific visualization to remote computers); ’507 patent 

col. 6 ll. 2–4 (explaining in background of the invention section that “a variety of visualization techniques . . . have 

been developed”); J.A. 13047 (Inventor Doyle describing existing visualization systems in a 1994 proposal). Nor does 

anything else in the claim or the specification show how the 

recited viewing transformation differs from conventional 

visual display. Thus, the “viewing transformations” limitation in claim 45—construed as “operations performed on 

data for visual display to a user”—fails to transform the 

abstract idea into an eligible technical solution. See, e.g., 

Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 

(Fed. Cir. 2016) (stating that “‘displaying concurrent visualization’ of two or more types of information . . . is ‘insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the 

application’ of an abstract idea’” (quoting buySAFE, Inc. 

v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).

For all of the above reasons, we conclude that the 

claims are directed to an abstract idea under Alice step 1 

and that the alleged inventive concepts identified by Eolas 

do not otherwise transform the abstract nature of the 

claims to render the claims patent-eligible. We thus agree 

with the district court’s judgment that the asserted claims 

of the ’507 patent are not eligible for patenting.

CONCLUSION

We have considered Eolas’s remaining arguments and 

find them unpersuasive. Because the district court correctly concluded that the ’507 patent claims are directed to 

ineligible subject matter, we affirm.

AFFIRMED

Case: 22-1932 Document: 59 Page: 18 Filed: 02/01/2024