NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

VOIT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

DEL-TON, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2018-1536

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of North Carolina in No. 5:17-cv-00259-

BO, Judge Terrence William Boyle.

______________________

Decided: February 8, 2019

______________________

PETER JOSEPH CORCORAN, III, Corcoran IP Law PLLC, 

Texarkana, TX, for plaintiff-appellant. 

 JOSEPH A. SCHOUTEN, Ward and Smith, PA, Raleigh, 

NC, for defendant-appellee. 

 ______________________

Before WALLACH, TARANTO, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

WALLACH, Circuit Judge.
2 VOIT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. DEL-TON, INC.

Appellant Voit Technologies, LLC (“Voit”) sued Appellee Del-Ton, Inc. (“Del-Ton”) in the U.S. District Court for 

the Eastern District of North Carolina (“District Court”), 

alleging infringement of claims 1, 3−6, 8−10, 12−13, and 

17−23 (“Asserted Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,226,412 

(“the ’412 patent”). Del-Ton filed a motion to dismiss Voit’s 

complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6), arguing that the Asserted Claims are patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (2012).1 The ’412 patent 

teaches a method that “provide[s] secure interactive communication of text and image information between a central server computer and one or more [remote] client

computers . . . for the purpose of storing and retrieving 

files describing unique products, services[,] or individuals.” 

’412 patent, Abstract. The District Court granted DelTon’s Motion, determining that the Asserted Claims are 

patent-ineligible. VOIT Techs., LLC v. Del-Ton, Inc., No. 

5:17-CV-259-BO, 2018 WL 385188, at *3–4 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 

11, 2018); see J.A. 1 (Judgment). 

Voit appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) (2012). We affirm.

DISCUSSION

Voit argues that the District Court erred in holding the 

Asserted Claims patent-ineligible under § 101. See Appellant’s Br. 15−36. After articulating the applicable standards, we address Voit’s arguments.

I. Standards of Review and Legal Standard

“We apply regional circuit law to the review of motions 

to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6),” 

In re TLI Commc’ns Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. 

 

1 Congress did not amend § 101 when it passed the 

Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. See generally Pub. L. 

No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011).
VOIT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. DEL-TON, INC. 3

Cir. 2016) (citation omitted), here, the Fourth Circuit. The 

Fourth Circuit “review[s] de novo the grant of a motion to 

dismiss for failure to state a claim” and “accept[s] as true 

all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint.” 

Gerner v. Cty. of Chesterfield, 674 F.3d 264, 266 (4th Cir. 

2012) (citation omitted). To survive a motion to dismiss for 

failure to state a claim, a complaint must allege “enough 

facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). While 

“well-pleaded factual allegations” are necessary to state a 

claim, mere “conclusions[] are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

“We review issues unique to patent law, including patent eligibility under . . . § 101, consistent with our circuit’s 

precedent.” Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit 

Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Although a district 

court’s determination of patent eligibility under § 101 is an 

issue of law, which we review de novo, see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1325 (Fed. 

Cir. 2017), “[t]he patent eligibility inquiry may contain underlying issues of fact,” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 

1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). Under § 101, 

a patent claim is ineligible if “(1) it is ‘directed to’ a patentineligible concept,” such as an “abstract idea,” and “(2), if 

so, the particular elements of the claim, considered ‘both 

individually and “as an ordered combination,”’ do not add 

enough to ‘“transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application.’” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom 

S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Alice 

Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014)). 

II. The Asserted Claims Are Patent-Ineligible 

The Asserted Claims are directed to the abstract idea 

of entering, transmitting, locating, compressing, storing, 

and displaying data (including text and image data) to facilitate the buying and selling of items. See ’412 patent 
4 VOIT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. DEL-TON, INC.

col. 11 ll. 5−53 (reciting, in claim 1,2 the process of, inter 

alia, (1) entering “text[] . . . and image information” into a 

remote data terminal, (2) “data-compressing the image 

data,” (3) “receiving” the text and image data, creating 

multiple “unique records” before “storing,” “locating” and 

“transmitting” the text and image data separately, (4) “decompressing the images . . . at the . . . remote data terminal,” and (5) “displaying the de-compressed images along 

with textual information”). We have previously determined that similar claims are directed to patent-ineligible 

subject matter. See, e.g., Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1353 

(holding claims that, inter alia, “collect[],” “analyz[e],” and 

“display[]” information directed to abstract ideas); In re 

TLI, 823 F.3d at 609 (holding claims that, inter alia, “transmit[]” digital images directed to the “abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images” (emphasis added)). 

Moreover, although we have stated that claims “purporting to improve the functioning of the computer . . . might not succumb to the abstract idea 

exception,” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 

1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted), Voit’s broad assertion that the Asserted 

Claims “allow[ed] more rapid transmission of higher resolution digital images” via “advanced image data compression” is unsupported, Appellant’s Br. 17, 18 (internal 

quotation marks omitted). Representative claim 1 appears 

to have specific limitations that are further described in the 

specification as being directed to using different compression formats in the claimed network, see id. col. 7 ll. 23−49, 

col. 11 ll. 16−17, 33−34, 48−54, such that all communication goes through the server and not directly between the 

personal computers (“PC”), see id. col. 7 ll. 41−45 (explaining that because “client PCs [lack] provisions for converting 

 

2 Independent claim 1 is representative. 
VOIT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. DEL-TON, INC. 5

T-format3 images into usable form[,] . . . the image filer

server . . . will perform this conversion step”). However,

Voit fails to explain how employing different formats, as 

claimed, improves compression techniques or the functioning of the computer. Instead, the specification demonstrates that the Asserted Claims are directed to use of 

generic computer components performing conventional 

compression techniques to carry out the claimed invention. 

See, e.g., ’412 patent col. 6 ll. 60−64 (acknowledging that 

“[i]n practice, the actual data compression methods employed could include the industry standard JPEG format . . . or other proprietary or commercially available

techniques” (emphases added)); cf. In re TLI, 823 F.3d at 

612 (finding claims “directed to the use of conventional or 

generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment” do not survive Alice step one). Thus, the Asserted 

Claims are directed to an abstract idea at Alice step one. 

Nor do the Asserted Claims recite an inventive concept

that transforms the abstract idea into a patentable invention. When claims, such as the Asserted Claims, are “directed to an abstract idea” and “merely requir[e] generic 

computer implementation,” they “do[] not move into [§] 101 

eligibility territory.” buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 

F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted). Although Voit alleges the method of 

the ’412 patent “improves the efficiency of transmitting”

high resolution data, Appellant’s Br. 10, we have recognized that claims directed to “improved speed or efficiency 

inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” 

 

3 The ’412 patent’s specification describes modifying 

locally stored format files into “’T’ or ‘Transmitted’ format”

files for transmission to the image file server “utilizing formatting methods similar to those . . . for encrypting without hardware security keys.” ’412 patent col. 7 ll. 6−7, 

8−10.
6 VOIT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. DEL-TON, INC.

are insufficient to demonstrate an inventive concept, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 

F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

Moreover, Voit has to do more than simply restate the 

claim limitations and assert that the claims are directed to 

a technological improvement without an explanation of the 

nature of that improvement. See e.g., ’412 patent col. 11 ll. 

16−17, 50–52 (providing claim 1’s compression steps). General statements of “advanced image data compression” or 

faster communications will not suffice where it is unclear 

how the different compression format claim limitations actually achieve the alleged improvements. In re TLI, 823 

F.3d at 615 (finding claims did not survive Alice step two 

where “abstract functional descriptions [were] devoid of 

technical explanation as to how to implement the invention”). Therefore, the Asserted Claims are patent-ineligible at Alice step two.

We are unpersuaded by Voit’s primary counterargument that the District Court erred because the Asserted 

Claims’ “ordered combination recites the inventive concept 

of improving client-server communications” by use of 

“batch uploading” and “performing image capture on a noninteractive basis . . . to minimize server participation.” Appellant’s Br. 33 (emphasis added) (internal quotation 

marks, underlining, and citation omitted). Even if captured in the Asserted Claims, those steps are generic and 

conventional; considering them as part of an ordered combination “add[s] nothing . . . that is not already present 

when the steps are considered separately.” Alice, 573 U.S. 

at 225 (citation omitted). Accordingly, the District Court 

did not err in holding the Asserted Claims patent-ineligible 

under § 101. 

CONCLUSION

We have considered Voit’s remaining arguments and 

find them unavailing. The Judgment of the U.S. District 

Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina is
VOIT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. DEL-TON, INC. 7

AFFIRMED