United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

BETEIRO, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

DRAFTKINGS INC., POINTSBET USA, INC., 

BETMGM, LLC, HILLSIDE NEW JERSEY LLC, 

BETFAIR INTERACTIVE US LLC, TSG 

INTERACTIVE US SERVICES LTD. CORP., ODS 

TECHNOLOGIES LP, KINDRED GROUP PLC, 

TRANNEL INTERNATIONAL, LTD., UNIBET 

INTERNATIONAL, LTD., UNIBET INTERACTIVE, 

INC.,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2022-2275, 2022-2277, 2022-2278, 2022-2279, 2022-2281, 

2022-2283

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

District of New Jersey in Nos. 1:21-cv-20148-CPO-SAK, 

1:21-cv-20155-CPO-SAK, 1:21-cv-20156-CPO-SAK, 1:21-

cv-20158-CPO-SAK, 1:22-cv-00577-CPO-SAK, 1:22-cv01536-CPO-SAK, Judge Christine P. O’Hearn.

______________________ 

Decided: June 21, 2024

______________________ 

MICHAEL SCOTT FULLER, Garteiser Honea. PLLC, Tyler, TX, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by 

Case: 22-2275 Document: 76 Page: 1 Filed: 06/21/2024
2 BETEIRO, LLC v. DRAFTKINGS INC. 

RANDALL T. GARTEISER, CHRISTOPHER A. HONEA. 

 ELIOT DAMON WILLIAMS, Baker Botts LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee DraftKings Inc. 

Also represented by JAMIE ROY LYNN; GEORGE HOPKINS 

GUY, III, Palo Alto, CA; ROBERT LAWRENCE MAIER, New 

York, NY; CLARKE STAVINOHA, Dallas, TX. 

 ELISABETH S. THEODORE, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer 

LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees 

BetMGM, LLC, BetFair Interactive US LLC, Hillside New 

Jersey LLC, Kindred Group PLC, ODS Technologies LP, 

PointsBet USA, Inc, Trannel International, Ltd., TSG Interactive US Services Ltd. Corp., Unibet Interactive, Inc., 

Unibet International, Ltd. Defendant-appellee BetMGM, 

LLC also represented by PATRICK BRODIE HALL, EVAN M.

ROTHSTEIN, Denver, CO.

 MEGAN J. REDMOND, Erise IP, P.A., Overland Park, KS, 

for defendants-appellees BetFair Interactive US LLC, ODS 

Technologies LP, TSG Interactive US Services Ltd. Corp. 

Also represented by CAROLINE A. BADER, ERIC ALLAN 

BURESH. 

 ARTHUR ZORIO, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP, 

Reno, NV, for defendant-appellee Hillside New Jersey 

LLC. 

 MARK MICHAEL SUPKO, Crowell & Moring, LLP, Washington, DC, for defendants-appellees Kindred Group plc, 

Trannel International, Ltd., Unibet International, Ltd., 

Unibet Interactive, Inc.

 CHARLES KRAMER VERHOEVEN, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for defendantappellee PointsBet USA, Inc. Also represented by JARED 

WESTON NEWTON, Washington, DC. 

______________________ 

Case: 22-2275 Document: 76 Page: 2 Filed: 06/21/2024
BETEIRO, LLC v. DRAFTKINGS INC. 3

Before DYK, PROST, and STARK, Circuit Judges. 

STARK, Circuit Judge. 

Beteiro, LLC (“Beteiro”) appeals from a judgment entered by the United States District Court for the District of

New Jersey dismissing its multiple related patent infringement cases for failure to state a claim based on the subject 

matter ineligibility of the patent claims. We affirm.

I 

Beteiro owns U.S. Patent Nos. 9,965,920 (“the ’920 patent”), 10,043,341 (“the ’341 patent”), 10,147,266 (“the ’266 

patent”), and 10,255,755 (“the ’755 patent”) (collectively, 

the “Asserted Patents”). All of the Asserted Patents share 

a common specification and title: “Apparatus and Method 

for Facilitating Gaming Activity and/or Gambling Activity.” The Asserted Patents disclose a purported invention 

which “facilitate[s] gaming activity and/or gambling activity at a gaming venue remote from the user’s or individual’s 

physical location” such that the user can “participate in live 

gaming activity and/or gambling activity via a user communication device” even if the user is not in the same location as the gaming venue. ’920 patent at 3:9-14.1

The ’920 patent explains that “many individuals enjoy 

gambling” but “may not always have access to particular 

gaming venues or gaming activities,” for reasons including 

that the individuals may be located in a jurisdiction in 

which gambling is not lawful. Id. at 1:44-47. As a solution, 

the patent describes a preferred embodiment in which “a 

user can access a . . . gaming facility computer 30 via the 

user communication device 20 and place a bet, wager, 

and/or otherwise engage in gaming activity and/or 

1 For ease of reference, we limit our specification citations to the ’920 patent.

Case: 22-2275 Document: 76 Page: 3 Filed: 06/21/2024
4 BETEIRO, LLC v. DRAFTKINGS INC. 

gambling activity.” Id. at 79:41-45. The “gaming facility 

computer 30 can determine if the remote gaming activity 

and/or gambling activity is allowed by the state having jurisdiction” over the individual by determining the location 

of that individual. Id. at 80:38-39. The patent describes 

ascertaining the user’s location through the use of a global 

positioning system (“GPS”) included in “user communication device(s).” Id. at 8:38-41. One embodiment describes 

the GPS equipped on a mobile device such as a mobile 

phone:

In another preferred embodiment, wherein the 

user communication device 20 is a wireless communication device and/or a mobile communication device (i.e. personal digital assistant, wireless 

videophone, wireless telephone, or palm-held device, etc., which can be equipped with a global positioning system (GPS) device 20J), the location of 

the user communication device 20 and, therefore, 

the location from which the gaming activity and/or 

gambling activity originates and/or from which it 

takes place can be determined by the user communication device 20 automatically transmitting position data and/or information to the respective 

central processing computer 10 and/or gaming facility computer 30 at the time of the user’s accessing of the respective central processing computer 

10 and/or gaming facility computer 30.

Id. at 80:10-24. Notably, the above-quoted portion of the 

specification is the only description anywhere in the very 

lengthy specification of a GPS equipped on a mobile phone.

Independent claim 2 of the ’755 patent, which the district court, the parties, and we agree is representative for 

purposes of evaluating the issue of patentable subject matter, see J.A. 9-10, recites:

A computer-implemented method, comprising:

Case: 22-2275 Document: 76 Page: 4 Filed: 06/21/2024
BETEIRO, LLC v. DRAFTKINGS INC. 5

detecting, with or using a computer which is 

specially programmed for processing information 

for providing for a placement of a bet on or regarding a gaming activity, a gambling activity, or a 

sporting event, a posting of information regarding 

the gaming activity, the gambling activity, or the 

sporting event;

generating, with or using the computer, a notification message regarding the gaming activity, the 

gambling activity, or the sporting event; 

initiating, with or using the computer, a communication link with a first communication device 

and transmitting the notification message to the 

first communication device as an electronic transmission, or transmitting, from the computer, the 

notification message as an electronic mail message, 

wherein the electronic mail message is received by 

or received at a first communication device, 

wherein the first communication device is associated with an individual;

receiving, with the computer, a bet message 

transmitted from the first communication device or 

from a second communication device, wherein the 

second communication device is associated with 

the individual, and further wherein the first communication device or the second communication device comprises a global positioning device, wherein 

the global positioning device determines a position 

or location of the first communication device or the 

second communication device, and further wherein 

the bet message contains information regarding a 

bet to be placed on or regarding the gaming activity, the gambling activity, or the sporting event, 

and information regarding the position or location 

of the first communication device or the second 

communication device; and

Case: 22-2275 Document: 76 Page: 5 Filed: 06/21/2024
6 BETEIRO, LLC v. DRAFTKINGS INC. 

determining, with or using the computer, 

whether the bet is allowed or disallowed using the 

information regarding the position or location of 

the first communication device or the second communication device and, if the bet is allowed, processing information for placing the bet for or on 

behalf of the individual, or, if the bet is disallowed, 

processing information for disallowing the bet.

’755 patent at 95:1-42 (emphasis added). 

During prosecution of three of the Asserted Patents, 

the patent examiner expressly evaluated the eligibility of 

the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and found them eligible 

based on their requirement of a particular machine or processor. See J.A. 617-19.

In 2021 and 2022, Beteiro filed at least six cases in the 

District of New Jersey maintaining essentially identical 

patent infringement claims against DraftKings, Inc.; 

PointsBet USA, Inc.; BetMGM, LLC; Hillside New Jersey 

LLC; BetFair Interactive US LLC; and Kindred Group plc 

(hereinafter “Appellees”). Beteiro alleged that Appellees 

infringe certain claims of the Asserted Patents by 

“provid[ing] a plurality of gambling and event wagering 

services.” J.A. 4. Appellees each filed Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss on the grounds that the asserted patents 

claim nonpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 

In a concise, careful opinion, the district court granted all 

of the motions. J.A. 1-20. The court then denied Beteiro’s 

motions for reconsideration, and Beteiro timely appealed.2

2 The district court had subject matter jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), and 1400(b). We 

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

Case: 22-2275 Document: 76 Page: 6 Filed: 06/21/2024
BETEIRO, LLC v. DRAFTKINGS INC. 7

II

We review issues not unique to patent law, including a 

Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, under the law of the regional circuit, in this case the Third Circuit. See Nalco Co. v. ChemMod, LLC, 883 F.3d 1337, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Third 

Circuit reviews Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals for failure to state 

a claim de novo. See Endo Pharms. Inc. v. Teva Pharms. 

USA, Inc, 919 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Ballentine v. United States, 486 F.3d 806, 808 (3d Cir. 2007)). 

Patent eligibility, governed by 35 U.S.C. § 101, is evaluated according to Federal Circuit law, and presents “a 

question of law, based on underlying facts.” SAP Am., Inc. 

v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 2018). We 

evaluate claims challenged under Section 101 by applying 

the now-familiar two-step Alice/Mayo framework. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216-24 (2014); 

Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 

U.S. 66, 77-80 (2012). At step one, we consider “whether 

the claims at issue are directed to [a] patent-ineligible concept” such as an abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. If 

they are, then we proceed to step two, at which “we consider the elements of each claim both individually and as 

an ordered combination to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a 

patent-eligible application.” Id. (internal quotation marks 

omitted). “[P]atent eligibility can be determined at the 

Rule 12(b)(6) stage . . . only when there are no factual allegations that, taken as true, prevent resolving the eligibility 

question as a matter of law.” Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green 

Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 

2018).

III

Reviewing the matter de novo, we agree with the district court’s application of the Alice/Mayo test. The challenged claims of the Asserted Patents are directed to an 

Case: 22-2275 Document: 76 Page: 7 Filed: 06/21/2024
8 BETEIRO, LLC v. DRAFTKINGS INC. 

abstract idea and do not contain an inventive concept. Beteiro’s arguments to the contrary lack merit.

A 

At step one, we agree with the district court that Beteiro’s claims are directed to the abstract idea of “exchanging information concerning a bet and allowing or 

disallowing the bet based on where the user is located.” 

J.A. 13. In reaching this conclusion, the district court accepted Appellees’ accurate characterization of the representative claim as consisting of the following series of 

abstract steps:

(1) detecting information about a gambling activity; (2) generating and transmitting a notification 

message regarding the activity to a user; (3) receiving a bet message that includes information regarding a bet to be placed and the location of the 

user; (4) determining whether the bet is allowed or 

disallowed using the location information; and (5) 

processing information for placing the bet or disallowing the bet.

Id.

The claims before us today exhibit several features that 

are well-settled indicators of abstractness. First, the 

claims broadly recite generic steps of a kind we have frequently held are abstract: detecting information, generating and transmitting a notification based on the 

information, receiving a message (bet request), determining (whether the bet is allowed based on location data), and 

processing information (allowing or disallowing the bet). 

See, e.g., AI Visualize, Inc. v. Nuance Commc’ns, Inc., 97 

F.4th 1371, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“We have explained that 

the steps of obtaining, manipulating, and displaying data, 

particularly when claimed at a high level of generality, are 

abstract concepts.”); Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom S.A., 

830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed Cir. 2016) (finding “a process of 

Case: 22-2275 Document: 76 Page: 8 Filed: 06/21/2024
BETEIRO, LLC v. DRAFTKINGS INC. 9

gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, 

then displaying the results” abstract); Intell. Ventures I 

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

Cir. 2015) (finding “tailoring content based on the [user’s] 

location” abstract); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 

1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claiming “a computer receiv[ing] and send[ing] information over a network – with 

no further specification – is not even arguably inventive”). 

Second, and as can be seen, the claims are drafted using largely (if not entirely) result-focused functional language, containing no specificity about how the purported 

invention achieves those results. Claims of this nature are 

almost always found to be ineligible for patenting under 

Section 101. See, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1356 

(“[T]he essentially result-focused, functional character of 

claim language has been a frequent feature of claims held 

ineligible under § 101, especially in the area of using generic computer and network technology to carry out economic transactions.”); Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast 

Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) 

(“The claim requires the functional results of ‘converting,’ 

‘routing,’ ‘controlling,’ ‘monitoring,’ and ‘accumulating records,’ but does not sufficiently describe how to achieve 

these results in a non-abstract way.”).

Third, we have several precedents in which we have 

concluded that broadly analogous claims, such as those involving methods of providing particularized information to 

individuals based on their locations, to be abstract. See, 

e.g., Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 

1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims involving “conveying regional content to out-of-region recipients”); Intell. Ventures 

I, 792 F.3d at 1369 (claims to “providing different newspaper inserts based upon the location of the individual”); see 

also generally Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 

841 F.3d 1288, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he decisional 

mechanism courts now apply [to Section 101 cases] is to 

Case: 22-2275 Document: 76 Page: 9 Filed: 06/21/2024
10 BETEIRO, LLC v. DRAFTKINGS INC. 

examine earlier cases in which a similar or parallel descriptive nature can be seen.”).3

Fourth, the district court was able to persuasively analogize Beteiro’s patent claims to longstanding “real-world” 

(“brick and mortar”) activities. See J.A. 14. A claimed 

method’s similarity to “fundamental . . . practices long 

prevalent” is yet another clue that the claims may be abstract and unpatentable. Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal 

quotation marks and brackets omitted). For example, the 

district court compared the claimed method to the actions 

of a teller at a casino that straddled state lines, who “had 

to ensure patrons were on the Nevada side of the building 

. . . before accepting a bet.” J.A. 15. The district court 

pointed out that “[t]hose accepting bets have always had to 

confirm that the bettor with whom they were dealing was 

located in a place where gambling was allowed.” J.A. 14-

15. It follows, as the district court rightly found, that the 

claims here are directed to a fundamental and longstanding economic activity, i.e., an abstract idea. See generally

Yu v. Apple Inc., 1 F.4th 1040, 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“[T]he 

3 Notable, but not authoritative, is the fact that we 

have non-precedentially affirmed several district court 

findings of ineligibility of remote-gaming patents that are 

analogous to those before us today. See, e.g., CG Tech. Dev., 

LLC v. FanDuel, Inc., 858 F. App’x 363 (Fed. Cir. 2021) 

(summarily affirming 442 F. Supp. 3d 840, 849-50 (D. Del. 

2020), which found abstract, and nonpatentable, claims directed to “real-world need to address the implications of 

differing jurisdictions and their effect on permitted game 

configurations”); NEXRF Corp. v. Playtika Ltd., 2022 WL 

1513310 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (summarily affirming 547 F. 

Supp. 3d 977, 991-92 (D. Nev. 2021), which found abstract, 

and nonpatentable, claims directed to “incentivizing gambling tailored to a user’s location”).

Case: 22-2275 Document: 76 Page: 10 Filed: 06/21/2024
BETEIRO, LLC v. DRAFTKINGS INC. 11

district court’s recognition at the pleadings stage in the 

context of § 101 of the century-old practice . . . concerns a 

pertinent fundamental . . . concept[] and technological development[] [and] is well supported by our precedents.”) 

(internal quotation marks omitted).

Notwithstanding all of these indications that the challenged claims of the Asserted Patents are directed to an 

abstract idea, Beteiro contends they are not, on the 

grounds that the claims are allegedly tied to technological 

improvements. “In the realm of computer-related technology, such as in this case, patent claims may be non-abstract 

at Alice step one if the focus of the claimed advance is on 

an improvement in computer technologies, rather than the 

mere use of computers.” AI Visualize, 97 F.4th at 1378. 

Like the district court, we reject Beteiro’s contention. The 

Asserted Patents involve the mere use of computers as 

tools and do not claim any improvement in the computerrelated technology itself. As Appellees put it, “the issue of 

remote gambling being uncommon in 2002 was not a technical problem, nor do the Asserted Claims’ invocation of 

technology developed by others constitute a solution.” Appellee Br. at 11-12. Content regulation and checking legal 

compliance are rooted in the abstract – they are legal problems, not technical problems – and the claims here do not 

provide “a specific improvement to the way computers operate.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 

(Fed. Cir. 2016).

Having concluded that the claims are directed to an abstract idea at step one, we proceed to review the district 

court’s analysis at step two. 

B 

At step two, the district court found that the representative claim failed to provide an inventive concept because it achieved the abstract steps “using several generic 

computers – namely, a ‘computer,’ a ‘communication link,’ 

a ‘first communication device,’ a ‘second communication 

Case: 22-2275 Document: 76 Page: 11 Filed: 06/21/2024
12 BETEIRO, LLC v. DRAFTKINGS INC. 

device,’ and a ‘global positioning device.’” J.A. 17-18. The 

district court thus concluded that “claim 2 simply describes 

a conventional business practice . . . executed . . . by generic computer components” which “cannot survive Step 2.” 

Id. at 18. We agree.

The ultimate determination of Alice step two, i.e., 

“[w]hether a combination of claim limitations supplies an 

inventive concept that renders a claim ‘significantly more’ 

than an abstract idea to which it is directed,” is a question 

of law that may be “inform[ed]” by “[u]nderlying factual determinations,” such as “whether a claim limitation or combination of limitations is well-understood, routine, and 

conventional.” BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 

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

We are unpersuaded by Beteiro’s contention that its 

complaint raised a genuine dispute as to whether the inclusion of GPS on a mobile phone was conventional technology in 2002, the earliest claimed priority date of the 

Asserted Patents. There is no plausible, non-conclusory allegation that the claimed GPS is anything other than part 

of, as the district court put it, “a set of generic computer 

components.” J.A. 18. The Asserted Patents repeatedly, 

but briefly, refer to conventional use of GPS in connection 

with several types of conventional computers, including a 

central processing computer, user communication device, 

gaming facility computer, financial institution computer, 

and escrow agent computer. See ’920 patent at 43:17-38, 

44:19-58, 46:41-62, 48:28-49, 50:14-35. Nowhere does the 

specification describe any difference between how GPS 

would be equipped on a mobile phone and how it would be 

equipped on any of the other described conventional computers. Where, as here, the 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). 

Case: 22-2275 Document: 76 Page: 12 Filed: 06/21/2024
BETEIRO, LLC v. DRAFTKINGS INC. 13

We excerpted earlier in this opinion the entirety of the 

Asserted Patents’ discussion of the use of GPS in a mobile 

communication device (e.g., mobile phone). See supra Part 

I. That only 15 lines out of a specification that runs to no 

less than 98 columns are addressed to what Beteiro now 

insists is unconventional technology greatly undermines 

the plausibility of Beteiro’s allegations. The inventors do 

not in the specification purport to have advanced GPS or 

mobile device technology; they provide no description 

whatsoever of any hardware or software for equipping GPS 

on a mobile device. In context, this can only plausibly mean 

that the patent applicant drafted the specification understanding that a person of ordinary skill in the art knew 

what GPS was, how to include it on a mobile device, and 

that using it for the purposes disclosed in the patent was 

routine, conventional, and well-understood. 

Beteiro’s complaint attempts to raise a factual dispute 

as to whether use of GPS in connection with gaming was 

anything other than conventional, routine, and well-understood at the priority date of the patent, but it fails to do so. 

Beteiro focuses our attention on, for instance, the complaint’s allegations that, as of the 2002 priority date, “the 

use of geolocation and global positioning as an integral 

data point in the processing of mobile wagers was still 

many years away;” the “sufficient[ly] sensitiv[e]” GL20000 

GPS Chip – as well as the iPhone and app-store – had not 

yet been introduced; and “the current industry leader in 

the space – GeoComply – did not even exist until 2011.” 

J.A. 622 ¶¶ 27-28; see also J.A. 626 ¶ 36. Given what is 

taught in the Asserted Patents themselves – and, most particularly in this case, what is not taught, which in context 

reinforces that a person of ordinary skill in the art would 

have recognized the claims to involve nothing more than 

conventional, routine, and well-understood use of GPS – no 

amount of creative pleading could have succeeded in transforming the claims into patent-eligible subject matter such 

Case: 22-2275 Document: 76 Page: 13 Filed: 06/21/2024
14 BETEIRO, LLC v. DRAFTKINGS INC. 

that Beteiro’s complaint states a claim on which relief 

could be granted.

As we quite recently summarized:

Conclusory allegations, or those “wholly divorced” 

from the claims or the specification, cannot defeat 

a motion to dismiss. And a patentee that emphasizes a claim’s use of certain technology, for example, a general-purpose computer, fails at step two 

when the intrinsic record establishes that the technology is conventional or well-known in the art.

AI Visualize, 97 F.4th at 1380 (internal citations omitted). 

While we must accept all of the complainant’s well-pleaded 

factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences from them, “generalized assertions that factual considerations about the state of the art preclude a decision at 

the pleadings stage” do not prevent a district court from 

granting a motion to dismiss, nor us from affirming such a 

dismissal. Sanderling Mgmt. Ltd. v. Snap Inc., 65 F.4th 

698, 705 (Fed. Cir. 2023). The complaint’s allegations we 

confront today are wholly divorced from the Asserted Patents and, as in AI Visualize, 97 F.4th at 1380, do not defeat 

the motion to dismiss. 

Like the district court, we reject Beteiro’s reliance on 

Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 

2019). As the district court observed, Beteiro’s allegations 

are “unlike the specific and detailed allegations” we considered in Cellspin. J.A. 19. We found the complaint in Cellspin sufficient to preclude dismissal because it alleged 

“specific, plausible factual allegations about why aspects of 

its claimed inventions were not conventional,” including by 

“identif[ying] several ways in which its [claimed] application of capturing, transferring, and publishing data was 

unconventional,” and rooting these allegations in the patent-in-suit. Cellspin, 927 F.3d at 1316-18. Beteiro’s allegations, by comparison, are neither specifically tied to the 

claimed invention nor, as we have explained, plausible (in 

Case: 22-2275 Document: 76 Page: 14 Filed: 06/21/2024
BETEIRO, LLC v. DRAFTKINGS INC. 15

light of the specification’s description of generic technology).

Additionally, a patent examiner’s consideration of Section 101 issues does not “in any way shield the patent’s 

claims from Article III review for patent eligibility.” Elec. 

Commc’n Techs., LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC, 958 

F.3d 1178, 1183 (Fed. Cir. 2020). In any event, the examiner applied pre-Alice caselaw, see J.A. 675, and did not distinguish our many post-Alice cases holding that the 

“physicality” of what is claimed “is not by itself enough to 

exempt the claims from being directed to an abstract idea” 

and being found ineligible for patenting. Solutran, Inc. 

v. Elavon, Inc., 931 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2019); see 

also Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Sys. & Software LLC, 

887 F.3d 1376, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding ineligible 

claims involving printing and handling physical election 

ballots); In re TLI, 823 F.3d at 611 (“While [the claim] requires concrete, tangible components . . . the specification 

makes clear that the recited physical components merely 

provide a generic environment in which to carry out the 

abstract idea . . . .”).

In the end, Beteiro’s claims amount to nothing more 

than the practice of an abstract idea using conventional 

(even as of 2002) computer equipment, including GPS on a 

mobile phone. Such claims are not eligible for patent under

current Section 101 jurisprudence. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. 

at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot 

transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patenteligible invention.”); BSG Tech., 899 F.3d at 1290-91 (“If a 

claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is the application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a patenteligible application of an abstract idea.”). Accordingly, the 

district court rightly dismissed the complaints.

Case: 22-2275 Document: 76 Page: 15 Filed: 06/21/2024
16 BETEIRO, LLC v. DRAFTKINGS INC. 

IV

We have considered Beteiro’s remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, for the reasons 

set out above, the district court’s dismissal of Beteiro’s complaints is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

Case: 22-2275 Document: 76 Page: 16 Filed: 06/21/2024