United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

BROADBAND ITV, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM SERVICES 

LLC, AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2023-1107

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Texas in No. 6:20-cv-00921-ADA, Judge 

Alan D. Albright.

______________________ 

Decided: September 3, 2024

______________________ 

JEFFREY A. LAMKEN, MoloLamken LLP, Washington, 

DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by 

RAYINER HASHEM; JONATHAN E. BARBEE, BENOIT QUARMBY, 

New York, NY; DAVID ALBERTI, ROBERT KRAMER, HONG 

LIN, Kramer Alberti Lim & Tonkovich LLP, Burlingame, 

CA.

 J. DAVID HADDEN, Fenwick & West LLP, Mountain 

View, CA, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by RAVI RAGAVENDRA RANGANATH, SAINA S.

Case: 23-1107 Document: 52 Page: 1 Filed: 09/03/2024
2 BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 

SHAMILOV; TODD RICHARD GREGORIAN, San Francisco, CA; 

JONATHAN G. TAMIMI, Seattle, WA.

 ______________________ 

Before DYK, REYNA, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

REYNA, Circuit Judge.

Broadband iTV sued Amazon in the Western District 

of Texas alleging patent infringement of five patents. Amazon moved for summary judgment, arguing that all asserted claims were patent ineligible subject matter under 

35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court granted Amazon’s motion, finding the claims were directed to an abstract idea 

and the patents failed to provide an inventive step that 

transformed that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Broadband iTV timely appeals. For the following reasons, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

A. The Asserted Patents

Broadband iTV (“BBiTV”) owns U.S. Patent Nos. 

10,028,026 (’026 patent); 9,648,388 (’388 patent); 

10,536,750 (’750 patent); 10,536,751 (’751 patent); and 

9,973,825 (’825 patent). Four of the five asserted patents 

are related—the ’026, ’388, ’750, and ’751 patents (’026 patent family)—and all claim priority to the same patent application. The ’388, ’750, and ’751 patents share a common 

specification that overlaps significantly with the ’026 patent’s specification. The ’825 patent is unrelated to the ’026 

patent family but covers similar technology. 

i. ’026 Patent Family

The ’026 patent family generally relates to electronic 

programming guides for televisions. According to the ’026 

patent, “video-on-demand” systems had recently emerged. 

’026 patent, 2:13–36. These systems offered an “interactive 

television service” by allowing a viewer to navigate through 

Case: 23-1107 Document: 52 Page: 2 Filed: 09/03/2024
BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 3

a program guide using a remote control and select a desired 

video program. Id. The ’026 patent family seeks to improve existing program guides by automating the creation 

of a hierarchically arranged, template-based program 

guide. Id. at Abstract, 3:16–4:5. A computer automatically 

creates the program guide by using video content and associated metadata that content providers upload to a 

server. Id. 

For purposes of this appeal, the parties treat claim 1 of 

the ’026 patent as representative of the ’026 patent family 

claims. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1365 

(Fed. Cir. 2018). Claim 1 recites: 

1. An Internet-connected digital device for receiving, via the Internet, video content to be viewed by 

a subscriber of a video-on-demand system using a 

hierarchically arranged electronic program guide, 

the Internet-connected digital device being configured to obtain and present to the subscriber an 

electronic program guide as a templatized videoon-demand display, which uses at least one of a 

plurality of different display templates to which 

the Internet-connected digital device has access, to 

enable a subscriber using the Internet-connected 

digital device to navigate in a drill-down manner 

through titles by category information in order to 

locate a particular one of the titles whose associated video content is desired for viewing on the Internet-connected digital device using the same 

category information as was designated by a video 

content provider in metadata associated with the 

video content; 

wherein the templatized video-on-demand display 

has been generated in a plurality of layers, comprising: (a) a first layer comprising a background 

screen to provide at least one of a basic color, logo, 

or graphical theme to display; (b) a second layer 

Case: 23-1107 Document: 52 Page: 3 Filed: 09/03/2024
4 BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 

comprising a particular display template from the 

plurality of different display templates layered on 

the background screen, wherein the particular display template comprises one or more reserved areas that are reserved for displaying content 

provided by a different layer of the plurality of layers; and (c) a third layer comprising reserved area 

content generated using the received video content, 

the associated metadata, and the associated plurality of images to be displayed in the one or more reserved areas in the particular display template as 

at least one of text, an image, a navigation link, and 

a button, 

wherein the navigating through titles in a drilldown manner comprises navigating from a first 

level of the hierarchical structure of the video-ondemand content menu to a second level of the hierarchical structure to locate the particular one of the 

titles, and 

wherein a first template of the plurality of different 

display templates is used as the particular display 

template for the templatized display for displaying 

the first level of the hierarchical structure and 

wherein a second template of the plurality of different display templates is used as the particular display template for the templatized display for 

displaying the second level of the hierarchical 

structure, 

wherein the received video content was uploaded to 

a Web-based content management system by a content provider device associated with the video content provider via the Internet in a digital video 

format, along with associated metadata including 

title information and category information, and 

along with an associated plurality of images designated by the video content provider, the associated 

Case: 23-1107 Document: 52 Page: 4 Filed: 09/03/2024
BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 5

metadata specifying a respective hierarchical location of a respective title of the video content within 

the electronic program guide to be displayed on the 

Internet-connected digital device using the respective hierarchically-arranged category information 

associated with the respective title, 

wherein at least one of the uploaded associated plurality of images designated by the video content 

provider is displayed with the associated respective 

title in the templatized video-on-demand display.

’026 patent, claim 1. 

ii. ’825 Patent

The ’825 patent also generally relates to electronic programming guides for “video-on-demand” television systems. ’825 patent, 1:58–64. The patent seeks to improve 

existing program guides by adjusting the order of categories of listings within a guide based on a user’s viewing history. Through these readjustments, the system reduces the 

number of keypresses needed for a viewer to reach their 

desired video program. Id. at Abstract. 

For purposes of this appeal, the parties treat claim 1 of 

the ’825 patent as representative of the ’825 patent claims

but also address dependent claim 15. See Berkheimer, 881 

F.3d at 1365. Claim 1 recites: 

1. A method for dynamic adjustment of an individualized electronic program guide where the adjustment is based at least in part on individual viewer 

consumption of video-on-demand programs on a 

subscriber TV system to enable navigating by an 

individual viewer in a TV subscriber household 

that may have a plurality of viewers to video-ondemand programs offered on a video-on-demand 

platform of a digital TV services provider which is 

at least part of a digital TV services provider system, the method comprising: 

Case: 23-1107 Document: 52 Page: 5 Filed: 09/03/2024
6 BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 

(a) maintaining, at the digital TV services provider 

system, an electronic program guide database comprising electronic program guide data, and a usage 

history database comprising a log of selection data 

corresponding to the viewer’s consumption of the 

video-on-demand programs using the video-on-demand platform; 

(b) establishing, at the digital TV services provider 

system, viewer-individualized electronic program 

guide data for each of a plurality of individual viewers to enable the generation of viewer-individualized electronic program guides for each of said 

plurality of individual viewers at the subscriber TV 

system for use in accessing the video-on-demand 

programs, and allowing each respective individual 

viewer to access a display of their respective 

viewer-individualized electronic program guide 

through a Log-In step by which the respective individual viewer operating the subscriber TV system 

can be associated with their respective viewer-individualized electronic program guide; 

(c) in one or more previous sessions while said respective individual viewer is logged onto their respective viewer-individualized electronic program 

guide in order to access the video-on-demand programs on the subscriber TV system, tracking, at 

the digital TV services provider system, said respective individual viewer’s consumption of the 

video-on-demand programs listed in their respective viewer-individualized electronic program 

guide and saving the selection data in the usage 

history database; 

(d) determining, at the digital TV services provider 

system, an order of relevance of a plurality of category names for said respective individual viewer 

selection of video-on-demand programs from their 

Case: 23-1107 Document: 52 Page: 6 Filed: 09/03/2024
BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 7

respective viewer-individualized electronic program guide based at least in part on said respective 

individual viewer’s selection data from said one or 

more previous sessions as stored in the usage history database and reflecting said respective individual viewer’s preferences for selection of videoon-demand programs from their respective viewerindividualized electronic program guide, and based 

at least in part on the electronic program guide 

data in the electronic program guide database; and

(e) at the start of each new session when said respective individual viewer logs onto their respective viewer-individualized electronic program 

guide in order to access video-on-demand programs 

on the subscriber TV system, reordering a current 

display listing of the category names for categories 

of video-on-demand programs on said respective individual viewer’s viewer-individualized electronic 

program guide based at least in part on said determined order of relevance.

’825 patent, claim 1. 

Claim 15 recites:

15. The method of claim 1, further comprising automatically generating an additional category or 

subcategory based on the log of said respective individual viewer’s consumption of the video-on-demand programs maintained in the usage history 

database.

Id. at claim 15. 

B. Procedural History

In October 2020, BBiTV sued Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and Amazon Web Services, Inc. (collectively, Amazon) in the United States District Court for 

the Western District of Texas alleging patent infringement. 

Case: 23-1107 Document: 52 Page: 7 Filed: 09/03/2024
8 BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 

BBiTV asserted claims 1, 6, and 7 of the ’026 patent; claims 

1, 13, and 17 of the ’388 patent; claims 1, 7, and 8 of the 

’750 patent; claims 1, 3, and 8 of the ’751 patent; and claims 

1, 10, 15, and 17 of the ’825 patent. Amazon moved for 

summary judgment in June 2022, arguing that all of 

BBiTV’s asserted claims were patent ineligible under 

35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court agreed, granted Amazon’s summary judgment motion, and entered judgment 

against BBiTV. See Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.com, 

Inc., 2022 WL 4703425 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2022). 

In conducting its § 101 analysis, the district court applied the two-step test set forth by the Supreme Court in 

Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 573 U.S. 208 

(2014). The district court conducted separate analyses for 

the ’026 patent family and the ’825 patent. 

i. ’026 Patent Family

At Alice step one, the district court determined the 

claims “are directed to the abstract idea of receiving hierarchical information and organizing the display of video 

content.” Broadband, 2022 WL 4703425, at *15. The district court likened the claims to both a “computerized implementation of [a] business process” and the abstract idea 

of sending classification information with content or displaying content hierarchically. Id. at *15–16. The district 

court also considered the generic nature of the claimed 

server and the “routine and conventional practice” of using 

the claimed templates. Id. at *16. The district court concluded that neither feature “transform[ed]” or “save[d] the 

claims under Alice.” Id. 

At Alice step two, the district court determined nothing

transforms the claims into something other than the abstract idea itself. Id. at *17–18. The district court determined there is no genuine dispute of material fact that the 

claims “recite only generic and conventional components, 

arranged in a conventional manner, and provide only conventional functionalities.” Id. at *17. After considering

Case: 23-1107 Document: 52 Page: 8 Filed: 09/03/2024
BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 9

BBiTV fact and expert testimony, along with the ’026 and 

’825 patents’ specifications, the district court found no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the claimed 

server or hierarchical organization was conventional. Id. 

The district court also determined that the claimed hierarchical navigation and the use of templates are fundamental 

human practices that form the abstract idea itself. Id. 

ii. ’825 Patent

At Alice step one, the district court determined the 

claims “are directed to the abstract idea of collecting and 

using a viewer’s video history to suggest categories of video 

content.” Id. at *11. The district court reasoned that 

“clerks at video rental stores” have done what the ’825 patent claims for years. Id. The district court determined 

that the claims are not meaningfully different from other 

claims that this court has found abstract, including claims

directed to collecting user information and providing content based on that information. Id. at *11–12 (collecting 

cases). 

At Alice step two, the district court determined nothing

transforms the claims into something other than the abstract idea itself. Id. at *13–15. The district court reasoned 

that the ’825 patent itself “admits that tracking systems 

that could collect the users’ viewing history were ‘conventional.’” Id. at *13 (citing ’825 patent, 7:28–38). Further, 

the district court explained, there is no genuine dispute of 

material fact that the claims recite conventional databases, 

servers, and televisions, combined with a generic method 

of identifying a user. Id. at *13–14. 

The district court determined that all asserted claims 

were patent ineligible under § 101. BBiTV appeals. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment under the law of the regional circuit, here the Fifth 

Case: 23-1107 Document: 52 Page: 9 Filed: 09/03/2024
10 BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 

Circuit. See Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., 

Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Fifth Circuit reviews summary judgment de novo. Id. Summary 

judgment is proper when, viewing all evidence in the light 

most favorable to the nonmovant, there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law. Triple Tee Golf, Inc. v. Nike, 

Inc., 485 F.3d 253, 261 (5th Cir. 2007). 

We review decisions of § 101 patent eligibility de novo. 

Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1342 

(Fed. Cir. 2018). Patent eligibility is a question of law that 

may be based on underlying factual findings. Berkheimer, 

881 F.3d at 1365. Section 101 patent eligibility may be resolved on summary judgment so long as there is not a genuine dispute of material fact. BSG Tech LLC v. 

Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

DISCUSSION

Section 101 of the Patent Act provides that: “Whoever 

invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, 

manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and 

useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, 

subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” 

35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has found that § 101 

“contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, 

natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 216 (citation omitted). The Supreme Court has articulated a two-step test, commonly 

referred to as the “Alice” test, to determine whether a patent claims patent-ineligible subject matter. Id. at 217–18. 

At Alice step one, we determine whether a claim is directed 

to a patent-ineligible concept, here an abstract idea. Id.

at 217. If not, the inquiry ends. But if the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we must proceed to step two. At 

Alice step two, we review whether the claim recites elements sufficient to transform it into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. Id. at 217–18. 

Case: 23-1107 Document: 52 Page: 10 Filed: 09/03/2024
BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 11

A. ’026 Patent Family

i. Alice Step One

The district court determined the claims of the ’026 patent family “are directed to the abstract idea of receiving 

hierarchical information and organizing the display of 

video content.” Broadband, 2022 WL 4703425, at *15. 

BBiTV argues that the ’026 patent family claims are directed to patentable improvements to computer user interfaces, and that the district court erred by dismissing claim 

elements it found to be generic at Alice step one rather than 

step two. We disagree with BBiTV.

At Alice step one, we must determine whether the 

claims at issue are directed to patent-ineligible subject 

matter, here, an abstract idea. The “directed to” inquiry 

requires that we look to the character of the claims as a 

whole. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 

(Fed. Cir. 2016). In addition to the claim language itself, 

we may also examine the patent’s specification to determine the meaning of the claims as a whole. Yu v. Apple

Inc., 1 F.4th 1040, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). 

The step one inquiry often turns to the question of what the 

patent asserts as the claimed advance over the prior art. 

Id.

Whether a claim is directed to a longstanding or fundamental human practice can inform whether a claim is abstract. CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358, 

1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, whether a patent’s claims can be performed in the

human mind or using a pencil and paper can inform 

whether a claim is abstract. PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. 

Google LLC, 8 F.4th 1310, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2021). But the 

Alice inquiry is not a prior art search. See CardioNet, 955 

F.3d at 1373. And it is not enough to “merely trace the 

invention to some real-world analogy.” Data Engine Techs. 

LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 

Case: 23-1107 Document: 52 Page: 11 Filed: 09/03/2024
12 BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 

The claims of the ’026 patent family are directed to receiving metadata and organizing the display of video content based on that metadata. Representative claim 1 of the 

’026 patent recites an “electronic program guide” that is automatically created using “metadata” that was “uploaded 

to a [server] by a content provider.” ’026 patent, claim 1. 

Specifically, the claimed metadata determines the “respective hierarchical location of a respective title of the video 

content within the electronic program guide to be displayed.” Id. 

The specification further confirms our understanding of 

what the claims are directed to. According to the ’026 patent, an increase in content offerings created the need to 

“enable home TV viewers to find something of interest for 

viewing among the vast numbers of new programs.” Id.

at 2:66–3:12. In response, the ’026 patent’s claimed advance is using a computer to generate a programming 

guide that automatically “list[s] the title of the video content in an electronic program guide” according to metadata 

uploaded by a content provider. Id. at 3:16–37. 

The district court correctly determined that receiving

metadata and organizing the display of video content based 

on that metadata is abstract. The ’026 patent family 

claims are substantively similar to claims this court has 

previously found directed to abstract ideas. In Electric 

Power Group, we found patent ineligible certain claims for 

“monitoring of an electric power grid by collecting data 

from multiple data sources, analyzing the data, and displaying the results.” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 

830 F.3d 1350, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In TLI, we found patent ineligible claims for “classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner” based on “‘classification 

data,’ such as a date or timestamp.” In re TLI Commc’ns 

LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 609–610 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 

Here, the ’026 patent family claims are directed to receiving and displaying information like Electric Power Group 

and organizing information based on classification 

Case: 23-1107 Document: 52 Page: 12 Filed: 09/03/2024
BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 13

information like TLI. As we have previously recognized, 

the combination of two abstract ideas does not render an 

abstract idea less abstract. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017).

BBiTV’s first argument relies heavily on Core Wireless 

and Data Engine. In Core Wireless, we held that claims 

directed to a “particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices” were not abstract. 880 F.3d at 1362. We explained that the claims at 

issue there were directed to the features of an improved 

user interface, including the size and location of the user 

interface. Id. at 1362–63. In Data Engine, we held that 

claims directed to a “specific method for navigating 

through three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets” were 

not abstract. 906 F.3d at 1007–08. There, the patent’s

specification identified the shortcomings and technological 

challenges in computer spreadsheets, and the claims provided a specific solution to the “known technological problem.” Id. 

Unlike the claims in Core Wireless or Data Engine, the

’026 patent family claims are not directed to an improved 

structure or function of a user interface. It is true that the 

claims are directed to a program guide, which is a type of 

user interface. But the fact that the claims involve a user 

interface does not automatically put the claims in the same 

category as Core Wireless and Data Engine. Instead, Core 

Wireless and Data Engine require an improved structure or 

function that is missing here. 880 F.3d at 1362–63; 906 

F.3d at 1007–09. Put another way, Core Wireless and Data 

Engine require a specific, technological solution to a technological problem. Here, the claims do not recite an improved structure or function within a user guide, but 

rather, are directed to arranging content in a particular order. Reordering content within a user guide is not a sufficient technological solution to a technological problem, but 

rather a results-oriented abstract idea. See Elec. Power 

Grp., LLC, 830 F.3d at 1355.

Case: 23-1107 Document: 52 Page: 13 Filed: 09/03/2024
14 BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 

BBiTV argues that the claimed templates provide specific structure similar to Core Wireless and Data Engine. 

We disagree. While claim 1 does recite a “templatized” 

video-on-demand display that consists of three layers, the 

use of templates to create the electronic programming 

guide is not the claimed advance. Instead, as previously 

discussed, the claims are directed to receiving metadata 

and organizing the display of video content based on that 

metadata. The claimed templates themselves do not provide a technological solution or improve any computer-related function. See Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Zillow Grp., 

Inc., 50 F.4th 1371, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2022). 

BBiTV’s second argument is that the district court performed an Alice step two inquiry within Alice step one. We 

discern no error in the district court’s analysis. 

We have observed that steps one and two are “plainly 

related” and patent eligibility may “involve overlapping 

scrutiny of the content of the claims.” Elec. Power Grp., 

LLC, 830 F.3d at 1353. This is not to say that the steps 

may be conflated or that a particular step may be disregarded. The step one analysis does not require that we “exclude the possibility that any particular inventive means 

are to be found somewhere in the claims.” Id. But we have 

recognized that it may be necessary to analyze conventionality at step one as well as step two, such as to determine 

whether a claim is directed to a longstanding or fundamental human practice or to determine what the patent asserts 

is the claimed advance over the prior art. See CareDx, Inc. 

v. Natera, Inc., 40 F.4th 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2022); see 

also Bozeman Fin. LLC v. Fed. Rsrv. Bank of Atlanta, 955 

F.3d 971, 978 (Fed. Cir. 2020). When it comes to analyzing 

conventionality, there is no “bright line between the two 

steps.” CareDx, 40 F.4th at 1379. Yet we must take care

to avoid allowing a conventionality analysis at step one to

render step two superfluous (except where the claimed innovation at step two is nothing more than practice of the 

abstract idea of step one). To find otherwise would ignore 

Case: 23-1107 Document: 52 Page: 14 Filed: 09/03/2024
BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 15

the Supreme Court’s guidance in Alice, which clearly set 

forth a two-step inquiry. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18. 

Here, the district court determined at step one that the 

claimed “[w]eb-based content management system . . . is a 

generic server.” Broadband, 2022 WL 4703425, at *16. 

Then, still at step one, the district court considered the 

claimed “templates,” and determined they merely provided

“a generic environment” and their use is “a routine and conventional practice.” Id. We agree that the claimed server 

and templates do not change the fact that the claims are 

directed to an abstract idea. The claimed server and templates do not change the outcome at step one because the 

claims are not directed to an improved server or provide a 

technological solution to template technology. Put another 

way, analyzing the conventionality of the claimed content 

management system and templates at step one is proper 

for the purpose of determining what the claims are directed 

to. We determine the claims of the ’026 patent family are 

directed to an abstract idea. 

ii. Alice Step Two

The district court determined nothing transforms the 

claims into something other than the abstract idea because 

there is no genuine dispute of material fact that the claims 

“recite only generic and conventional components, arranged in a conventional manner, and provide only conventional functionalities.” Broadband, 2022 WL 4703425, 

at *17. BBiTV points to three aspects of the claims that it 

believes transform the claims to more than the abstract 

idea: first, the idea of generating displays “automatically 

from specific template types” based on data that content 

providers upload to a database; second, the content management system which is a type of server; and third, the 

claimed templates. Appellant Br. 50–53. We agree with 

the district court that none of these elements transform the 

claims at step two into something other than the abstract 

idea itself. 

Case: 23-1107 Document: 52 Page: 15 Filed: 09/03/2024
16 BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 

At Alice step two, we must determine whether the 

claims include “an element or combination of elements” 

that transforms the claims into something “significantly 

more” than a claim on the patent-ineligible concept itself. 

Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citation omitted). The patentineligible concept itself cannot transform the invention into 

something significantly more than that concept. BSG Tech 

LLC, 899 F.3d at 1290. Similarly, claim elements or combinations of claim elements that are routine, conventional 

or well-understood cannot transform the claims. Id.

at 1290–91. When the patent’s specification “describes the 

components and features listed in the claims generically,” 

it “support[s] the conclusion that these components and 

features are conventional.” Weisner v. Google LLC, 51 

F.4th 1073, 1083–84 (Fed. Cir. 2022); see also Beteiro, 

LLC v. DraftKings Inc., 104 F.4th 1350, 1357–58

(Fed. Cir. 2024). 

The district court correctly determined that the ’026 patent family claims do not include something “significantly 

more” than the abstract idea itself. The district court examined the intrinsic record and BBiTV’s fact and expert 

testimony regarding the nature of certain features of the 

claims and found no genuine dispute of material fact that 

precluded summary judgment. Broadband, 2022 

WL 4703425, at *17–18. We agree with the district court. 

BBiTV argues that the idea of generating displays “automatically from specific template types” based on data 

that content providers upload to a database transforms the 

’026 patent family into more than the abstract idea. We

are not persuaded. Automation of an abstract idea does not 

constitute an inventive concept. See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363; see also Alice, 573 U.S. 

at 221–24. Further, this argument is nothing more than 

the abstract idea itself. See BSG Tech LLC, 899 F.3d 

at 1290. Receiving and displaying information is the abstract idea we identified at step one. Those elements,

Case: 23-1107 Document: 52 Page: 16 Filed: 09/03/2024
BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 17

therefore, cannot transform that idea into significantly 

more. 

BBiTV next argues that the content management system transforms the ’026 patent family into more than the 

abstract idea. This argument fares no better than the last. 

The district court concluded that the content management 

system is a conventional server. Broadband, 2022 

WL 4703425, at *17. Notably, the ’026 patent’s specification does not claim to improve server technology, but instead discloses using conventional server capabilities such 

as “manag[ing] a [d]atabase,” and “retrieving” and “transmitt[ing]” content. ’026 patent, 3:44–53, 5:24–29, 6:4–9. 

The district court also considered inventor testimony that 

the server used to implement the claimed content management system was available “off the market.” Broadband, 

2022 WL 4703425, at *17 (citation omitted). We agree with 

the district court that no genuine dispute of material fact 

precludes summary judgment. 

BBiTV’s third argument is that the claimed templates 

transform the claims to more than the abstract idea. We

are not persuaded. The district court found no genuine dispute of material fact (albeit, at step one), that the claimed 

templates are generic, routine and well-understood in the 

art. The ’026 patent’s specification does not purport to improve templates, but instead discloses using known templates, such as those created by a “template design firm,” 

to automate content-creation. ’026 patent, 7:44–49. In 

reaching its conclusion, the district court also considered 

BBiTV’s infringement expert’s admission that templates 

“were a known entity” at the time of the invention. Broadband, 2022 WL 4703425, at *10. We agree with the district 

court’s conclusion. When properly analyzed at step two, we 

reach the same conclusion as the district court and determine that the claimed templates do not transform the 

claims to more than the abstract idea. 

Case: 23-1107 Document: 52 Page: 17 Filed: 09/03/2024
18 BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 

Because we determine the claims of the ’026 patent family do not include “significantly more” than the abstract 

idea itself, we find that the claims are patent ineligible under § 101.

B. ’825 Patent

i. Alice Step One

The district court determined the claims of the ’825 patent “are directed to the abstract idea of collecting and using a viewer’s video history to suggest categories of video 

content.” Id. at *11. BBiTV argues that the ’825 patent 

claims are directed to patentable improvements to computer user interfaces, again relying on Data Engine and 

Core Wireless. We disagree with BBiTV. 

Representative claim 1 of the ’825 patent is directed to

the abstract idea of collecting and using viewing history 

data to recommend categories of video content. Claim 1 

recites “maintaining . . . a usage history database,” using a 

“Log-In step” to track an “individual viewer’s consumption,” and “generat[ing] . . . viewer-individualized electronic program guides.” ’825 patent, claim 1. Claim 1 does 

not disclose how to maintain a usage history database, 

track viewer consumption, or generate a program guide. 

Instead, the claims recite functions in the abstract. 

The ’825 patent’s specification confirms that the claims 

are directed to an abstract idea. The specification discloses

claim 1 as “(a) maintaining a list of category names . . . (b) 

tracking a viewer’s past history . . . [and] (c) reordering a 

current display listing of the category names based on 

[viewer history].” Id. at 3:1–9. 

Put another way, claim 1 is directed to a type of “targeted advertising,” which we have repeatedly found abstract. See, e.g., Free Stream Media Corp. v. Alphonso Inc., 

996 F.3d 1355, 1361–62 (Fed. Cir. 2021); Intell. Ventures I 

LLC v. Cap. One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. 

Cir. 2015); Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 

Case: 23-1107 Document: 52 Page: 18 Filed: 09/03/2024
BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 19

951 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Many of our targeted 

advertising cases have noted, as the district court did here, 

that patent claims on targeted advertising are abstract. 

See Intell. Ventures I LLC, 792 F.3d at 1369 (tailoring information, as in targeted advertising, is a “fundamental . . . 

practice long prevalent in our system” (citation omitted)). 

Further, determining content to recommend based on user 

consumption history can be performed in the human mind 

or using a pencil and paper. This is another indication that 

the claims are abstract. See PersonalWeb Techs., 8 F.4th 

at 1316; see also Beteiro, 104 F.4th at 1356. Indeed, the 

patent claims differ little from a check-out system at a public library. Consistent with our “targeted advertising” precedent, we conclude that the claims of the ’825 patent are 

directed to an abstract idea. 

The stated goal of the ’825 patent, to reduce the number 

of “keypresses needed for a viewer to navigate to a title of 

interest,” does not compel a different result. ’825 patent, 

Abstract. The reduction in keypresses is achieved through 

the recited targeted advertising method. And that method 

is abstract. As we have previously observed, a claim that 

results in increased speed or efficiency may still be directed 

to an abstract idea, as is the case here. See Intell. Ventures 

I LLC, 792 F.3d at 1366–67. 

BBiTV argues that the claims of the ’825 patent are directed to an improved structure or function of a user interface as in Core Wireless and Data Engine. We disagree. 

While claim 1 does involve a user interface, merely identifying a user interface does not invoke Core Wireless and 

Data Engine. The ’825 patent claims are directed to reordering content within a user guide based on viewing history, which does not rise to a technological solution to a 

technological problem. Similar to the ’025 patent family 

claims, the ’825 patent claims do not claim a technological 

solution to a technological problem. 

Case: 23-1107 Document: 52 Page: 19 Filed: 09/03/2024
20 BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 

Because we determine the claims of the ’825 patent are 

directed to an abstract idea, we proceed to Alice step two. 

ii. Alice Step Two

The district court determined nothing transforms the 

claims into something other than the abstract idea itself. 

Broadband, 2022 WL 4703425, at *13–15. BBiTV argues 

that the claims include three elements that transform the 

claims into something significantly more than the abstract 

idea itself: generating displays where categories are arranged based on relevance; identifying a viewer using a login step; and creating new categories to encompass highly 

relevant content. BBiTV’s third argument relies exclusively on claim 15, as only claim 15 requires “generating an 

additional category” of programs based on viewing history. 

’825 patent, claim 15. We are not persuaded. 

The district court correctly determined that the ’825 patent claims are not transformed into something “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. As with the ’026 

patent family, the district court thoroughly examined the 

intrinsic record, including both the claims and the specification of the ’825 patent. Broadband, 2022 WL 4703425, 

at *13–15. The district court largely based its step two 

analysis on the intrinsic record, and we again agree with 

the district court’s interpretation of the intrinsic record. 

BBiTV argues that generating displays where categories are arranged based on relevance transforms the 

claims. As with its argument at Alice step two for the ’026 

patent family, BBiTV fails to show transformative elements that recite something more than the abstract idea 

itself. See BSG Tech LLC, 899 F.3d at 1290. Generating 

displays that are arranged based on relevance is a restatement of the abstract idea of collecting and using viewing 

history data to recommend categories of content. Even if 

the recommended categories are “new,” as only claim 15 requires, that requirement is a feature of the abstract idea of 

recommending categories and does not sufficiently 

Case: 23-1107 Document: 52 Page: 20 Filed: 09/03/2024
BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 21

transform the claims. Further, the idea of creating categories is a longstanding human practice that does not transform the claims, especially given that claim 15 does not 

include any requirements for how the desired result is 

achieved. See Intell. Ventures I LLC, 838 F.3d at 1315; 

Elec. Power Grp., LLC, 830 F.3d at 1355. 

The log-in step also fails to transform the claims. The 

district court correctly determined that there is no genuine 

dispute of material fact that the log-in step is anything 

other than well-understood, routine, and conventional. 

The patent does not claim any specific method of logging 

in, but rather, requires that each viewer can access their 

individualized program guide “through a Log-In step.” ’825 

patent, claim 1. The patent’s specification similarly does 

not claim to improve log-in technology or provide an innovative method of logging in, but instead merely discusses 

logging in as a way to identify a user and carry out the abstract idea of providing a targeted program guide. Id. 

at 3:28–35. Adding a generic log-in step to achieve the abstract idea of recommending content based on a user’s 

viewing history does not sufficiently transform the abstract 

idea. 

Because we determine the claims of the ’825 patent do 

not include “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself, we find that the claims are patent ineligible under 

§ 101.

CONCLUSION

We have considered BBiTV’s other arguments and find 

them unpersuasive. For the above reasons, we hold that 

the asserted claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject 

matter and are not sufficiently transformed into something 

other than the abstract idea itself and therefore are rendered as non-patent eligible subject matter. We thus affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment based 

on subject matter ineligibility under § 101. 

Case: 23-1107 Document: 52 Page: 21 Filed: 09/03/2024
22 BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS 

Costs to Amazon. 

Case: 23-1107 Document: 52 Page: 22 Filed: 09/03/2024