NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

______________________

ROBERT R. BRUNELLI, Sheridan Ross PC, Denver, CO, 

argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by BRIAN 

BOERMAN; BRIAN ANDREW CARPENTER, Cole Schotz P.C., 

Dallas, TX; GEORGE THEODORE SCOTT, WALTER JAMES 

SCOTT, JR., Scott Law Group LLP, Evergreen, CO. 

 BRYAN ALEXANDER KOHM, Fenwick & West LLP, San 

Francisco, CA, argued for defendant-appellee. Also 

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

PANDORA MEDIA, LLC

2

represented by JESSICA L. BENZLER; JONATHAN THOMAS 

MCMICHAEL, Seattle, WA.

______________________

Before PROST, STOLL, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

STARK, 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”) are directed to nonpatentable 

subject matter. Bluebonnet also asks us to reconsider our 

prior decision to issue 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 ineligible 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 patents. Representative claim 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 streaming media clips rating 

system that receives a rating when 

a user enters a rating selection by 

Case: 22-2215 Document: 45 Page: 2 Filed: 03/29/2024
BLUEBONNET 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 system 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 

system and modifies rating information in the organizational data 

structure 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 ordered the case to be transferred to the Northern District. Thereafter, Pandora 

moved for judgment on the pleadings, 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: 03/29/2024
BLUEBONNET 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 twostep Alice test. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 

208 (2014). “First, 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 patent-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 law 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 allegations 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, the 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: 03/29/2024
BLUEBONNET 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. We agree with 

the district court. Our precedent establishes that these 

types of methods of organizing digital media – which is 

what creating playlists based on user feedback is – are abstract ideas. See, e.g., In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 

823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A]ttaching 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 functionality 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 step two, we further agree with the district court 

that the claims lack any inventive concept. As the trial 

court stated, 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 network 

components operating according to their ordinary functions.” Two-Way Media Ltd., 874 F.3d at 1339.

Contrary to Bluebonnet’s contentions, the district court 

was not required to accept as true allegations in the complaint that are conclusory, state legal conclusions, or contradict the patent itself. Even accepting Bluebonnet’s 

assertion that four or five different components are required to practice 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: 03/29/2024
BLUEBONNET INTERNET MEDIA SERVICES, LLC v.

PANDORA MEDIA, LLC

6

construction2 – the sheer number of conventional computer

components employed, without more, does not constitute 

an inventive concept. See, e.g., Yu v. Apple Inc., 1 F.4th 

1040, 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 quotation 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 claim 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 the 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