N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

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

______________________ BLUEBONNET INTERNET MEDIA SERVICES, LLC, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

PANDORA MEDIA, LLC, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2022

- 2215

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in No. 3:21

- cv

- 08294

- VC, Judge Vince Chhabria.

______________________
Decided: March 29, 2024

______________________

R OBERT R. B RUNELLI , Sheridan Ross PC, Denver, CO, argued for plaintiff

- appellant. Also represented by B RIAN B OERMAN ; B RIAN A NDREW C ARPENTER , Cole Schotz P.C., Dallas, TX; G EORGE T HEODORE S COTT , W ALTER J AMES S COTT , J R

. , Scott L aw Group LLP, Evergreen, CO.

B RYAN A LEXANDER K OHM , Fenwick & West LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for defendant

- appellee. Also Case: 22-2215 Document: 45 Page: 1 Filed: 03/29/2024BLUEBONNET INTERNET MEDIA SERVICES , LLC v. PANDORA MEDIA , LLC 2

represented by J ESSICA L. B ENZLER ; J ONATHAN T HOMAS M C M ICHAEL , Seattle, WA.

______________________
Before P ROST , S TOLL , and S TARK , Circuit Judges

. S TARK , Circuit Judge

.Bluebonnet Internet Media Services, LLC (“Bluebonnet”) appeals the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“Northern District”) that all asserted claims of its U.S. Patent Nos. 9,405,753 (“’753 patent”), 9,547,650 (“’650 patent”), and 9,779,095 (“’095 patent”) a re directed to non patentable subject matter. Bluebonnet also asks us to reconsider our prior decision to issu e a writ of mandamus and order this case to be transferred from the Western District of Texas (“Western District”). We find that the patents are directed to an abstract idea and do not contain an inventive concept, rendering the patents in eligible and the issue of forum transfer moot. Accordingly, we affirm.

I

Bluebonnet filed suit in the Western District against Pandora Media, LLC (“Pandora”) alleging infringement of certain claims of the ’753

, ’650 , and ’095 patent s. Representative c laim 1 of the ’753 patent recites:
A system comprising:
a playback interface executing on an internet enabled multimedia computing platform including:
a media player that plays media resources delivered over the Internet from a remote server, and

a str eaming media clips rating system that receives a rating when a user enters a rating selection by Case: 22-2215 Document: 45 Page: 2 Filed: 03/29/2024BLUEBONNET INTERNET MEDIA SERVICES , LLC v. PANDORA MEDIA , LLC 3

using one or more of an icon or display feature of the playback interface, and signals, via the Internet, the rating to a rating component; and
a rating syste m including:

a database management component that maintains an organizational data structure that describes rating information for the media

resources, the rating component receives, via the Internet, the rating from the streaming media clips rating syst em and modifies rating information in the organizational datastructure at least based on the rating; and
a play

- list generator adapted to automatically and dynamically generate at least one play

- list based on rating information in the organizational data structure, wherein the play

- list comprises identifiers of one or more media resources selected based on the rating information, wherein the media resources are played back on the media player.
’753 patent at 38:41

- 65.

Pandora’s motion to transfer the case from the Western District was originally denied

, but we later granted Pandora’s mandamus petition and order ed the case to be transferred to the Northern District. Thereafter, Pandora moved for judgment on the pleading s, which the judge in the Northern District granted. The court found that while the asserted “claims may capture the core of a good Case: 22-2215 Document: 45 Page: 3 Filed: 03/29/2024BLUEBONNET INTERNET MEDIA SERVICES , LLC v. PANDORA MEDIA , LLC 4

business idea, ” “ they are directed to an abstract idea and lack an inventive concept

– and are therefore invalid” under 35 U.S.C. § 101. J.A. 27. Bluebonnet timely appealed. 1

II
We evaluate subject matter eligibility using the two

step Alice test

. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int ’ l , 573 U.S. 208 (2014). “ F irst, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent

- ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea,” and

, second, we “determine whether [the claim] contains an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a pat ent

- eligible application.” Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co. , 935 F.3d 1341, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on

. . . a computer,’ that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice , 573 U.S. at 223 (internal citation omitted).
“We review procedural aspects of the grant of judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) based on the l aw of the regional circuit,” which here is the Ninth Circuit. Two

- Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC , 874 F.3d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2017)

. In the Ninth Circuit, “ [d] ismissal for failure to state a claim is reviewed de novo. Factual allegatio ns in the complaint are taken as true and all reasonable inferences are drawn in the plaintiff’s favor.” Barrett v. Belleque , 544 F.3d 1060, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted).

III

At Alice step one , t he district court found that Bluebonnet’s claims were directed to the abstract idea of

1 The district court had subject

- matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a) (1)

. Case: 22-2215 Document: 45 Page: 4 Filed: 03/29/2024BLUEBONNET INTERNET MEDIA SERVICES , LLC v. PANDORA MEDIA , LLC 5

“customizing a product according to a customer’s likes and dislikes ,” applied “to the somewhat narrower context of computer

- based media playlists

. ” J.A. 28. W e agree with the district court. Our precedent establishes that these types of method s of organizing digital media

– which is what creating playlists based on user feedback is

– are abstract idea s

. See, e.g.

, In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig.

, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A]ttachi ng classification data, such as dates and times, to images for the purpose of storing those images in an organized manner is a well

- established ‘ basic concept ’ sufficient to fall under Alice step 1.”). And it is well

- settled that “merely adding computer f unctionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the

process ,” as the claims asserted here do, “ does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.” Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One Bank (USA) , 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015)

. At s tep two, we further agree with the district court that the claims lack any inventive concept. As the trial
court state d, the claims “describe only the basic steps of streaming media, rating media, generating a playlist, and sharing a playlist.” J.A. 29. The claims do not , for instance, provide a new algorithm or method for creating playlists. Indeed, as the district court pointed out, the inventors “acknowledged that [they] did not invent streaming media, playlists or media players.” J.A. 29 ( internal quotation marks omitted). Nor do the claims “ require [] anything other than conventional computer and networkcomponents operating according to their ordinary functions.” Two

- Way Media Ltd.

, 874 F.3d at 13 39

. Contrary to Bluebonnet’s contentions, the dis trict courtwas not required to accept as true allegations in the complaint that are conclusory, state legal conclusions, or contradict the patent itself. E ven accepting Bluebonnet’sassertion that four or five different components are required to practic e the asserted claims

– a contention we do not endorse, as it amounts to an untimely request for claim Case: 22-2215 Document: 45 Page: 5 Filed: 03/29/2024BLUEBONNET INTERNET MEDIA SERVICES , LLC v. PANDORA MEDIA , LLC 6

construction 2

– t he sheer number of conventional computer components employed, without more, does not constitute an inventive concept. See , e.g. , Yu v. Apple Inc. , 1 F.4th1040, 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (holding that “claimed configuration does not add sufficient substance to the underlying abstract idea ” where “ generic hardware limitations

. . . merely serve as a conduit for the abstract idea”) (internal q uotation marks omitted)

. We have considered Bluebonnet’s other arguments and find them unpersuasive. 3 For the reasons stated above, we affirm the district court’s decision.

AFFIRMED

2 Claim construction proceedings were held in the Western District. After transfer to the Northern District, and during briefing on Pandora’s Rule 12(c) motion, Bluebonnet argued that the Western District’s constructions were correct and that no further cla im construction need be undertaken.

3 Given our affirmance of the unpatentability determination, Bluebonnet’s dissatisfaction with the transfer of

venue is moot . We note, however, that any challenge to venue has to be raised first in the district court. Here, Bluebonnet did not move in t he Northern District to transfer the case back to the Western District . Nor does it ask us to dismiss or remand this appeal to allow it to do so now

. Case: 22-2215 Document: 45 Page: 6 Filed: 03/29/2024