NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

REALTIME DATA LLC, DBA IXO,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

ARRAY NETWORKS INC., NIMBUS DATA, INC.,

Defendants

FORTINET, INC., REDUXIO SYSTEMS, INC., 

QUEST SOFTWARE, INC., CTERA NETWORKS, 

LTD., ARYAKA NETWORKS, INC., OPEN TEXT, 

INC., MONGODB INC., EGNYTE, INC., PANZURA, 

INC.,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2021-2251

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware in No. 1:17-cv-00800-CFC, Chief 

Judge Colm F. Connolly.

-----------------------------------------------

REALTIME DATA LLC, DBA IXO,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

Case: 21-2251 Document: 95 Page: 1 Filed: 08/02/2023
2 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC. 

SPECTRA LOGIC CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2021-2291

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware in No. 1:17-cv-00925-CFC, Chief 

Judge Colm F. Connolly.

______________________ 

Decided: August 2, 2023

______________________ 

BRIAN DAVID LEDAHL, Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by 

MARC A. FENSTER, PAUL ANTHONY KROEGER, REZA MIRZAIE,

SHANI M. WILLIAMS. 

 JOHN NEUKOM, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for all defendants-appellees. Defendantappellee Fortinet, Inc. also represented by DOUGLAS R.

NEMEC, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New 

York, NY; JAMES Y. PAK, Palo Alto, CA. 

 GUY YONAY, Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz LLP, 

New York, NY, for defendants-appellees Reduxio Systems, 

Inc., CTERA Networks, Ltd.

 ALTON GEORGE BURKHALTER, Burkhalter Kessler 

Clement & George LLP, Irvine, CA, for defendant-appellee 

Panzura, Inc. Also represented by MAHSA MICHELLE 

ROHANI. 

 THEODORE J. ANGELIS, K&L Gates LLP, Seattle, WA, 

for defendant-appellee Quest Software, Inc. Also 

Case: 21-2251 Document: 95 Page: 2 Filed: 08/02/2023
REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC. 3

represented by NICHOLAS F. LENNING, ELIZABETH 

WEISKOPF. 

 JOSHUA M. MASUR, Zuber Lawler LLP, Redwood City, 

CA, for defendant-appellee Aryaka Networks, Inc. 

 TIMOTHY J. CARROLL, Venable LLP, Chicago, IL, for defendant-appellee Open Text, Inc. Also represented by 

LAURA A. WYTSMA, Los Angeles, CA. 

 HILARY L. PRESTON, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Austin, TX, 

for defendant-appellee MongoDB Inc. Also represented by 

PARKER DOUGLAS HANCOCK, Houston, TX. 

 RYAN T. BEARD, FisherBroyles LLP, Austin, TX, for defendant-appellee Egnyte, Inc. Also represented by 

CHRISTOPHER ROBERT KINKADE, Princeton, NJ. 

 ROBERT E. PURCELL, The Law Office of Robert E. Purcell, PLLC, Syracuse, NY, for defendant-appellee Spectra 

Logic Corporation. 

 GABRIEL K. BELL, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Veritas Technologies LLC. Also 

represented by AMIT MAKKER, San Francisco, CA. 

 ______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge REYNA. 

Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN.

REYNA, Circuit Judge.

This case returns to us for the second time. Appellant 

Realtime sued several companies, including some of the 

Appellees, in the District of Delaware for infringing various 

combinations of five patents related to methods and 

Case: 21-2251 Document: 95 Page: 3 Filed: 08/02/2023
4 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC. 

systems for data compression. Some of the Appellees 

moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6) for, among other things, failure to state a claim, 

arguing that the claims of the patents were patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court held a hearing 

and orally announced that all of the claims from the five 

patents were invalid under § 101. On appeal, this court 

vacated and remanded for the district court to provide a 

more detailed § 101 analysis. Realtime Data LLC v. Reduxio Systems, Inc., 831 F. App’x 492 (Fed. Cir. 2020)

(“Realtime I”). 

On remand, the district court issued a written opinion 

that found that the claims from all eight asserted patents 

(by then, Realtime had asserted three more patents and 

had added more parties) were invalid under § 101 because 

the claims were directed to an abstract idea. Realtime Data 

LLC v. Array Networks Inc., 537 F. Supp. 3d 591 (D. Del. 

2021) (“Realtime II”). The court dismissed Realtime’s complaints but allowed Realtime to amend them, which it did—

adding material and dropping a patent. On renewed motions to dismiss, the district court reaffirmed its prior analysis and dismissed the amended complaints—this time, 

without leave to amend. Realtime Data LLC v. Array Networks Inc., 556 F. Supp. 3d 424 (D. Del. 2021) (“Realtime 

III”). 

Realtime appeals. For the reasons below, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

A. The Asserted Patents

The seven patents at issue here are U.S. Patent Nos. 

9,054,728 (’728 patent), 8,933,825 (’825 patent), 8,717,203 

(’203 patent), 9,116,908 (’908 patent), 7,415,530 (’530 patent), 10,019,458 (’458 patent), and 9,667,751 (’751 patent). 

All generally relate to methods and systems for digital data 

compression. Appellant’s Br. 15. The seven patents can be 

broken into three families. Id. 

Case: 21-2251 Document: 95 Page: 4 Filed: 08/02/2023
REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC. 5

The family 1 patents. The ’728, ’825, and ’203 patents 

are in the same family, share a specification, and are titled 

“Data Compression Systems and Methods.”1 The patents 

address issues with lossless data compression techniques, 

including the “fundamental problem” of their “content sensitive behavior” or “data dependency,” which “implies that 

the compression ratio achieved is highly contingent upon 

the content of the data being compressed.” ’728 patent at 

2:29–35. Another issue with lossless data compression 

techniques is that “there are significant variations in the 

compression ratio obtained when using a single lossless 

data compression technique for data streams having different data content and data size.” Id. at 2:41–45. According 

to the patents, although “conventional content dependent 

techniques,” which typically rely on file type descriptors 

appended to file names, for example, “.doc” or “.txt,” may 

be used to address these problems, those content dependent techniques had “[f]undamental limitations.” Id. at 

2:65–3:19; see also Appellant’s Br. 17. 

To avoid problems associated with data dependency 

and to improve efficacy, the patents describe “a system for 

data compression that looks beyond the file type descriptor, 

to the underlying data, to complete the desired compression.” Realtime I, 831 F. App’x at 493–94 (citing ’728 patent 

at 3:59–5:11). The system uses a combination of contentindependent and content-dependent data compression and 

decompression. See ’728 patent at Abstract, 1:34–37, 3:59–

62, 6:24–27. 

The ’728 patent includes 25 claims.2 Claim 25 recites: 

1 Because these patents share a specification, when 

appropriate, we will refer to the ’728 patent specification 

for all three. 

2 The district court implicitly treated a single claim 

from each asserted patent as representative. See, e.g., 

Case: 21-2251 Document: 95 Page: 5 Filed: 08/02/2023
6 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC. 

25. A computer implemented method comprising:

analyzing, using a processor, data within a 

data block to identify one or more 

parameters or attributes of the data within 

the data block; 

determining, using the processor, whether 

to output the data block in a received form 

or in a compressed form; and 

outputting, using the processor, the data 

block in the received form or the 

compressed form based on the 

determination, 

wherein the outputting the data block in 

the compressed form comprises 

determining whether to compress the data 

block with content dependent data 

compression based on the one or more 

Realtime II, 537 F. Supp. 3d at 599–602 (reproducing a single claim from each patent). It also at times did so expressly. See id. at 606 (“I adopt claim 18 as representative 

of the [’]825 patent for the purposes of § 101 subject-matter 

eligibility.”); id. at 613–14 (“agree[ing]” that claim 9 of the 

’458 patent and claim 1 of the ’751 patent were representative). Appellees assert that the claims that the district 

court reproduced are representative. Realtime does not 

meaningfully argue that, for eligibility purposes, there is 

any distinctive significance between the claims that the 

district court and the Appellees treat as representative and

the other claims in the respective patents. We thus treat 

those claims as representative. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 

881 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (claims may be treated 

as “representative” if a patentee makes no “meaningful argument for the distinctive significance of any claim limitations not found in the representative claim”).

Case: 21-2251 Document: 95 Page: 6 Filed: 08/02/2023
REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC. 7

parameters or attributes of the data within 

the data block or to compress the data block 

with a single data compression encoder; 

and 

wherein the analyzing of the data within 

the data block to identify the one or more 

parameters or attributes of the data 

excludes analyzing based only on a 

descriptor that is indicative of the one or 

more parameters or attributes of the data 

within the data block.

Id. at claim 25. 

The ’825 patent includes 30 claims. Claim 18 recites: 

18. A method comprising:

associating at least one encoder to each one 

of a plurality of parameters or attributes of 

data; 

analyzing data within a data block to 

determine whether a parameter or 

attribute of the data within the data block 

is identified for the data block; 

wherein the analyzing of the data within 

the data block to identify a parameter or 

attribute of the data excludes analyzing 

based only on a descriptor that is indicative 

of the parameter or attribute of the data 

within the data block; 

identifying a first parameter or attribute of 

the data of the data block;

compressing, if the first parameter or 

attribute of the data is the same as one of 

the plurality of parameter or attributes of 

the data, the data block with the at least 

Case: 21-2251 Document: 95 Page: 7 Filed: 08/02/2023
8 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC. 

one encoder associated with the one of the 

plurality of parameters or attributes of the 

data that is the same as the first parameter 

or attribute of the data to provide a 

compressed data block; and 

compressing, if the first parameter or 

attribute of the data is not the same as one 

of the plurality of parameters or attributes 

of the data, the data block with a default 

encoder to provide the compressed data 

block.

’825 patent at claim 18. 

The ’203 patent includes 30 claims. Claim 14 recites: 

14. A system for decompressing, one or more 

compressed data blocks included in one or more 

data packets using a data decompression engine, 

the one or more data packets being transmitted in 

sequence from a source that is internal or external 

to the data decompression engine, wherein a data 

packet from among the one or more data packets 

comprises a header containing control information 

followed by one or more compressed data blocks of 

the data packet the system comprising:

a data decompression processor configured 

to analyze the data packet to identify one 

or more recognizable data tokens 

associated with the data packet, the one or 

more recognizable data identifying a 

selected encoder used to compress one or 

more data blocks to provide the one or more 

compressed data blocks, the encoder being 

selected based on content of the one or more 

data blocks on which a compression 

algorithm was applied; 

Case: 21-2251 Document: 95 Page: 8 Filed: 08/02/2023
REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC. 9

one or more decompression decoders 

configured to decompress a compressed 

data block from among the one or more 

compressed data blocks associated with the 

data packet based on the one or more 

recognizable data tokens; wherein:

the one or more decompression decoders 

are further configured to decompress the 

compressed data block utilizing content 

dependent data decompression to provide a 

first decompressed data block when the one 

or more recognizable data tokens indicate 

that the data block was encoded utilizing 

content dependent data compression; and 

the one or more decompression decoders 

are further configured to decompress the 

compressed data block utilizing content 

independent data decompression to provide 

a second decompressed data block when 

the one or more recognizable data tokens 

indicate that the data block was encoded 

utilizing content independent data 

compression; and 

an output interface, coupled to the data 

decompression engine, configured to output 

a decompressed data packet including the 

first or the second decompressed data 

block.

’203 patent at claim 14. 

The family 2 patents. The ’908, ’530, and ’458 patents 

are in the same family, share a specification, and are titled 

“System and Methods for Accelerated Data Storage and 

Case: 21-2251 Document: 95 Page: 9 Filed: 08/02/2023
10 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC. 

Retrieval.”3 These patents are directed to “[s]ystems and 

methods for providing accelerated data storage and retrieval utilizing lossless data compression and decompression.” ’908 patent at Abstract; see also id. at 1:15–18, 2:58–

60, 4:42–44. The patents describe certain drawbacks found 

in prior art systems, including that “high performance disk 

interface standards . . . offer only the promise of higher 

data transfer rates through intermediate data buffering in 

random access memory” and do not address the “fundamental problem” with physical media limitations, id. at 

2:34–42; and that “[f]aster disk access data rates are only 

achieved by the high[-]cost solution of simultaneously accessing multiple disk drives with a technique known . . . as 

data striping,” id. at 2:42–45. 

The patents purport to overcome these issues by using 

a “data storage accelerator,” which “operates to increase 

the effective data storage rate of” a “data storage device” or 

“memory device.” Id. at 5:35–47; see also id. at 3:25–33. 

The specification explains that “the data storage accelerator . . . employs . . . any conventional data compression 

method suitable for compressing data at a rate necessary 

for obtaining accelerated data storage.” Id. at 16:49–54; see 

also id. at 11:31–36. “[T]he data compression ratio of the 

data storage accelerator . . . may be adjusted by applying a 

different type of encoding process such as employing a single encoder, multiple parallel or sequential encoders, or 

any combination thereof.” Id. at 10:6–10. The specification 

further explains that “[d]ata compression is performed by 

an encoder module . . . which may comprise a set of encoders . . . [that] may include any number . . . of those lossless 

encoding techniques currently well known within the art.” 

Id. at 11:66–12:5. In a preferred embodiment, “the 

3 Because these patents share a specification, when 

appropriate, we will refer to the ’908 patent specification 

for all three. 

Case: 21-2251 Document: 95 Page: 10 Filed: 08/02/2023
REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC. 11

encoding techniques are based upon their ability to effectively encode different types of input data.” Id. at 12:5–7. 

This, the specification explains, is meant “to eliminate the 

complexity and additional processing overhead associated 

with multiplexing concurrent encoding techniques.” Id. at 

12:31–33. A “compression type descriptor,” moreover, can 

be appended to the encoded data block output “so as to indicate the type of compression format of the encoded data 

block.” Id. at 12:40–67. 

The ’908 patent includes 30 claims. Claim 1 recites: 

1. A system comprising:

a memory device; and 

a data accelerator configured to compress: 

(i) a first data block with a first 

compression technique to provide a first 

compressed data block; and (ii) a second 

data block with a second compression 

technique, different from the first 

compression technique, to provide a second 

compressed data block; 

wherein the compressed first and second 

data blocks are stored on the memory 

device, and the compression and storage 

occurs faster than the first and second data 

blocks are able to be stored on the memory 

device in uncompressed form. 

Id. at claim 1. 

The ’530 patent includes 26 claims. Claim 1 recites: 

1. A system comprising:

a memory device; and 

a data accelerator, wherein said data 

accelerator is coupled to said memory 

device, a data stream is received by said 

Case: 21-2251 Document: 95 Page: 11 Filed: 08/02/2023
12 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC. 

data accelerator in received form, said data 

stream includes a first data block and a 

second data block, said data stream is 

compressed by said data accelerator to 

provide a compressed data stream by 

compressing said first data block with a 

first compression technique and said 

second data block with a second 

compression technique, said first and 

second compression techniques are 

different, said compressed data stream is 

stored on said memory device, said 

compression and storage occurs faster than 

said data stream is able to be stored on said 

memory device in said received form, a first 

data descriptor is stored on said memory 

device indicative of said first compression 

technique, and said first descriptor is 

utilized to decompress the portion of said 

compressed data stream associated with 

said first data block. 

’530 patent at claim 1. 

The ’458 patent includes 22 claims. Claim 9 recites: 

9. A method for accelerating data storage 

comprising: 

analyzing a first data block to determine a 

parameter of the first data block; 

applying a first encoder associated with the 

determined parameter of the first data 

block to create a first encoded, data block 

wherein the first encoder utilizes a lossless 

dictionary compression technique; 

analyzing a second data block to determine 

a parameter of the second data block; 

Case: 21-2251 Document: 95 Page: 12 Filed: 08/02/2023
REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC. 13

applying a second encoder associated with 

the determined parameter of the second 

data block to create a second encoded data 

block, wherein the second encoder utilizes 

a lossless compression technique different 

than the lossless dictionary compression 

technique; and 

storing the first and second encoded data 

blocks on a memory device, wherein 

encoding and storage of the first encoded 

data block occur faster than the first data 

block is able to be stored on the memory 

device in unencoded form. 

’458 patent at claim 9.

The family 3 patent. The ’751 patent is titled “Data 

Feed Acceleration” and relates to “systems and method[s]

for providing accelerated transmission of data . . . over a 

communication channel using data compression and decompression to . . . effectively increase the bandwidth of 

the communication channel and/or reduce the latency of 

data transmission.” ’751 patent at 1:25–36. The specification explains that “accelerated” transmission is “a process 

of receiving a data stream for transmission over a communication channel, compressing the broadcast data in realtime . . . at a compression rate that increases the effective 

bandwidth of the communication channel, and transmitting the compressed broadcast data over the communication channel.” Id. at 6:28–36. The ’751 patent describes 

drawbacks with conventional data transmission systems, 

including that “current methods of encryption and compression take as much or substantially more time than the 

actual time to transmit the uncompressed, unencrypted 

data.” Id. at 3:31–33. A “problem within the current art,” 

the ’751 patent explains, “is the latency induced by the act 

of encryption, compression, decryption, and decompression.” Id. at 3:34–36. 

Case: 21-2251 Document: 95 Page: 13 Filed: 08/02/2023
14 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC. 

The ’751 patent asserts that it solves these problems 

with a “data compression ratio [that] is substantial and repeatable on each data packet” and that has “no packet-topacket data dependency.” Id. at 7:55–66. The patent explains that compression can be “achieved” using one or 

more “state machines,” which “are constructed based on apriori knowledge of the structure and content of one or 

more given broadcast and data feeds” and which “comprise[] a set of compression tables that comprise information for encoding the next character (text, integer, etc.) 

or sequence of characters in the broadcast data feed, as well 

as pointers which point to the next state (encoding table) 

based on the character or character sequence.” Id. at 9:6–

16. The patent further explains that “[g]eneral purpose 

computers, servers, workstations, personal digital assistants, special purpose microprocessors, dedicated hardware, or and [sic] combination thereof may be employed to 

implement the present invention.” Id. at 8:23–26. 

The ’751 patent includes 48 claims. Claim 1 recites: 

1. A method for compressing data comprising: 

analyzing content of a data block to identify 

a parameter, attribute, or value of the data 

block that excludes analyzing based solely 

on reading a descriptor; 

selecting an encoder associated with the 

identified parameter, attribute, or value; 

compressing data in the data block with the 

selected encoder to produce a compressed 

data block, wherein the compressing 

includes utilizing a state machine; and 

storing the compressed data block; 

wherein the time of the compressing the 

data block and the storing the compressed 

Case: 21-2251 Document: 95 Page: 14 Filed: 08/02/2023
REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC. 15

data block is less than the time of storing 

the data block in uncompressed form. 

Id. at claim 1. 

B. Procedural History

Realtime filed suit alleging infringement of various

combinations of the claims of the ’728, ’203, ’908, ’530, and 

’751 patents against Appellees Fortinet and Reduxio in November 2017, against Appellee Panzura in August 2018, 

and against Appellee Aryaka in December 2018. Realtime 

I, 831 F. App’x at 494. Fortinet, Reduxio, Panzura, and 

Aryaka moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim in 

2019. Id. at 494–95. They argued, among other things,

that the claims from those five patents were patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Id. at 495. 

In 2019, the district court issued an oral ruling from 

the bench dismissing those five patents for lack of subject 

matter eligibility under § 101. Id. On appeal, this court 

vacated and remanded, finding that the district court had 

provided too cursory a ruling to allow for meaningful appellate review. Id. at 496–98. For example, we explained 

that the district court failed to consider the claims as a 

whole; to “seriously consider[]” claims beyond claim 25 of 

the ’751 patent; or to carefully consider the “directed to” 

question. Id. 

Following remand, the district court issued a May 4, 

2021 written opinion, in which it found that the seven patents at issue here (and another patent that Realtime later 

dropped) invalid for claiming patent-ineligible subject matter. Realtime II, 537 F. Supp. 3d at 599.4 In doing so, the 

4 By this time, Realtime had sued additional parties 

and added additional patents, and some of the new parties 

had also filed motions to dismiss. Realtime II, 537 F. Supp. 

3d at 599. 

Case: 21-2251 Document: 95 Page: 15 Filed: 08/02/2023
16 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC. 

district court first rejected Realtime’s argument that the 

court could not rule on a motion to dismiss because there 

were factual assertions that prevented disposal at the 

pleading stage. Id. at 604–05. The court found, for instance, that the “patents themselves explain that the technologies and methods used in the claimed analyses were 

well-known and routine.” Id. at 605. The court also found 

that the 42 paragraphs in one of Realtime’s complaints, 

which Realtime argued contained relevant factual assertions, merely recited legal conclusions, quotations from the 

patents, and conclusory allegations. Id. None, it found, 

identify an inventive feature that is distinct from one of the 

claimed abstract ideas. Id. 

The district court next analyzed the specific patents. 

Id. at 605–616. The court considered whether it was appropriate to use representative claims (concluding that it 

was) and applied the two-step ineligibility analysis set 

forth in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 

208 (2014) for each patent. Id. It then summarized its 

analysis and addressed Realtime’s arguments, which the 

court found were applicable to every patent. Id. at 616–21. 

As for Alice step one, the court found that every claim 

from the asserted patents is “directed to the concept of manipulating information using compression.” Id. at 616. 

And “[b]ecause data compression is, without more, simply 

a form of data analysis, the claims are directed to abstract 

ideas.” Id. The court found that the claims are not “highly 

specific” and do not provide a “technical solution”: they fail 

to teach “how to engineer an improved system,” how to “analyze data,” or how to achieve the claimed “efficiency benefits.” Id. at 616–17. The court found that these factors

distinguished the claims from those at issue in the cases 

Realtime relied on—which were “necessarily rooted in computer technology.” Id. at 618 n.4. 

As for Alice step two, the court found that the claims 

provided no additional features that would transform the 

Case: 21-2251 Document: 95 Page: 16 Filed: 08/02/2023
REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC. 17

claims into non-abstract subject matter: “they simply apply 

an abstract idea on generic computers with generic techniques.” Id. at 616. The court thus concluded that “all 

claims of the asserted patent are invalid under § 101 for 

lack of subject matter eligibility.” Id. at 621. The district 

court gave Realtime the opportunity to file amended complaints. Id. After Realtime did so, the defendants renewed 

their motions to dismiss. See, e.g., J.A. 3411.

On August 23, 2021, the district court again dismissed, 

finding once again that the patents were invalid under 

§ 101. Realtime III, 556 F. Supp. 3d at 437. The court first 

examined whether there were any material differences between Realtime’s prior complaints and its amended complaints. Id. at 433. It found that nothing added changed 

its prior § 101 analysis. Id. It then incorporated its legal 

analysis from the Realtime II decision into its decision, reaffirmed its determination that the claims are all invalid 

under § 101, and granted dismissal. Id. at 435–36. At this 

point, the district court did not offer Realtime leave to 

amend. 

Realtime appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

DISCUSSION

We review the grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss under the law of the applicable regional circuit—here, 

the Third Circuit. Endo Pharms. Inc. v. Teva Pharms. 

USA, Inc., 919 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The Third 

Circuit reviews de novo a district court’s grant of a motion 

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

Id. (citing Ballentine v. United States, 486 F.3d 806, 808 

(3d Cir. 2007)). 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 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

Case: 21-2251 Document: 95 Page: 17 Filed: 08/02/2023
18 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC. 

Section 101 of the Patent Act states: “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. But § 101 “contains an important implicit exception: 

Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are 

not patentable.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 216 (citations omitted). 

The Supreme Court has articulated a two-step test for examining patent eligibility when a patent claim allegedly involves such patent ineligible subject matter. Id. at 217–18. 

Under the “Alice” test, a claim falls outside § 101 if (1) it is 

directed to a patent-ineligible concept like an abstract idea, 

and (2) it lacks elements sufficient to transform the claim 

into a patent-eligible application. SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1166–67 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 

We review § 101 patent eligibility under Federal Circuit law. Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit 

Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Eligibility is 

ultimately a question of law that may be based on underlying factual findings. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 

1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018). And it may be resolved on a Rule 

12(b)(6) motion “where the undisputed facts, considered 

under the standards required by that Rule, require a holding of ineligibility under the substantive standards of law.” 

SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1166. 

Here, the district court found that the claims of all 

seven patents at issue are directed to abstract ideas and 

that they do not recite elements that transform the subject 

matter into an eligible application of the abstract ideas. 

We agree.

A. Alice Step One

At Alice step one, we consider whether the claims are

directed to an abstract idea. In doing so, we review the 

asserted claims, considered in light of the specification. Yu 

Case: 21-2251 Document: 95 Page: 18 Filed: 08/02/2023
REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC. 19

v. Apple, 1 F.4th 1040, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (citing TecSec, 

Inc. v. Adobe Inc., 978 F.3d 1278, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2020)). 

The district court found that the claims from the asserted patents are directed to the abstract idea “of manipulating information using compression.” Realtime II, 537 

F. Supp. 3d at 616. Specifically, it found that the patents 

are directed to the following abstract ideas: 

• the ’728 and ’825 patents—“compressing data based 

on the content of that data”; 

• the ’203 patent—“compressing or decompressing 

data based on the characteristics of that data where 

a token is used to signify the compression method

used”; 

• the ’908 and ’530 patents—“the combination of the 

abstract idea of compressing two different data 

blocks with different methods and the logical condition that compression and storage together are 

faster than storage of the uncompressed data alone”; 

• the ’458 patent—“compressing data using two distinct lossless compression algorithms such that the 

time to compress and store the first data block is less 

than the time to store the uncompressed data block”; 

and 

• the ’751 patent—“compressing data with a state machine under conditions where compressing and storing the data is faster than storing the uncompressed 

data and where the compression method applied to 

the data is based on the content of the data.”

Realtime III, 556 F. Supp. 3d at 430. 

Realtime argues that the claims of the asserted patents 

are directed not to abstract ideas but “to specific improvements to digital data compression, and do not simply recite 

the use of an abstract mathematical formula, or a fundamental economic or business practice, on any generalCase: 21-2251 Document: 95 Page: 19 Filed: 08/02/2023
20 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC. 

purpose computer.” Appellant’s Reply Br. 13 (citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1338 (Fed. Cir.

2016)). Realtime contends that this court has “on multiple 

occasions highlighted ‘an improved, particularized method 

of digital data compression’ as an example of a non-abstract, ‘technologically complex’ invention.” Appellant’s Br. 

48 (quoting DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 

1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). 

The district court found these arguments unpersuasive. “The asserted patents,” it explained, “do not in fact 

offer a ‘technologically complex . . . improved, particularized method’ for compression but instead recite abstract 

ideas with only the most general directions to apply those 

ideas.” Realtime II, 537 F. Supp. 3d at 621–22 (modifications in original). Indeed, the district court observed, the 

claims do not disclose the “how”—“how to engineer an improved system,” how to “analyze data,” or how to achieve 

the claimed “efficiency benefits.” Id. at 616–17; see also 

Realtime III, 556 F. Supp. 3d at 435 n.6 (“[W]hile the patents do disclose potential challenges (e.g., the problem of 

selecting the best compression method for given data), they 

do not teach how to address those challenges.”). 

We agree. As we have “repeatedly” held, to avoid ineligibility, “a claim must have the specificity required to 

transform the claim from one claiming only a result to one 

claiming a way of achieving it.” Free Stream Media Corp. 

v. Alphonso Inc., 996 F.3d 1355, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2021) 

(cleaned up) (citing SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1167–68). We 

have determined that “the claim itself . . . must go beyond 

stating a functional result.” Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc. v. 

Neapco Holdings LLC, 967 F.3d 1285, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 

2020). The claim must “identify ‘how’ th[e] functional result is achieved by limiting the claim scope to structures 

specified at some level of concreteness, in the case of a product claim, or to concrete action, in the case of a method 

claim.” Id.; see also Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 

830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]here is a critical 

Case: 21-2251 Document: 95 Page: 20 Filed: 08/02/2023
REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC. 21

difference between patenting a particular concrete solution 

to a problem and attempting to patent the abstract idea of 

a solution to the problem in general.” (citation omitted)).

The claims at issue here fail to do this. As the district 

court explained, none of the claims at issue specifies any 

particular technique to carry out the compression of data—

the particular rules for producing a smaller set of data out 

of a larger starting set. Rather, they all take the availability of compression techniques as a given and address the 

threshold matter of choosing to use one or more such available techniques. And even as to making such a selection, 

the claims are directed to only abstract ideas, calling for 

unparticularized analysis of data and achievement of general goals.

We begin our review with the family 1 patents. The 

representative claim of the ’728 patent recites a method 

that requires “analyzing” “data within a data block” using

a “processor” to “identify” certain unspecified “parameters” 

or “attributes” of the data; “determining” whether to “output” the data block in either a “received” or “compressed” 

form; and “outputting” the data block in the determined 

form; wherein outputting in compressed form comprises 

determining whether to compress with “content dependent 

data compression” (based on the parameters or attributes) 

or to compress with a “single data compression encoder”; 

and wherein analyzing the data “excludes analyzing based 

only on a descriptor that is indicative” of the parameters or 

attributes. ’728 patent at claim 25. But neither the claim

nor the specification ever explains how that data is to be 

analyzed or compressed. See, e.g., id. at 7:11–22 (“The encoder set E1, E2, E3 . . . En may include any number . . . of . . . lossless encoding techniques currently well 

known within the art . . . to provide a broad coverage of existing and future data types”). The claim, for example, does 

not recite whether it analyzes data to determine the data’s 

length, complexity, type, or structure. The sole guidance it 

provides is that the analysis cannot be “based only on a 

Case: 21-2251 Document: 95 Page: 21 Filed: 08/02/2023
22 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC. 

descriptor.” But minimal narrowing does not make the 

claim less abstract. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 

F.3d 1281, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also SAP Am., 898 

F.3d at 1169 (“further narrowing of what are still mathematical operations” is still abstract). 

The representative claim of the ’825 patent is similar. 

It recites a method that requires “associating” at least one 

“encoder” with unspecified “parameters” or “attributes” of 

the data; “analyzing” the data within a “data block” to determine whether the unspecified parameters or attributes 

are identified; “identifying” a “parameter”; and “compressing” the data. ’825 patent at claim 18. Like claim 25 of the 

’728 patent, this claim also fails to recite how the data is to 

be analyzed or compressed. 

The representative claim of the ’203 patent fares no 

better. It recites a decompression system that requires a 

“data decompression processor” to “analyze” a “data 

packet” to “identify” “data tokens” associated with the data 

packet and which “identify[]” an “encoder used” for compression; “decompression decoders” to “decompress” a 

“compressed data block” based on the tokens associated 

with the compression method; and an “output interface” to 

“output” the decompressed data. ’203 patent at claim 14. 

Neither the claim nor the specification explains how the 

decompression is actually achieved. See id. at 14:66–15:3

(“The decoders D1 . . . Dn may include those lossless encoding techniques currently well known within the art.”). 

Turning to the family 2 patents, the representative 

claim of the ’908 patent recites a system requiring a

“memory device” and a “data accelerator” to “compress” a 

“first data block with a first compression technique” and a 

“second data block with a second compression technique,” 

wherein the compressed data blocks are stored on the 

memory device and the “compression and storage occurs 

faster” than storage of the uncompressed data alone. ’908 

patent at claim 1. The claim does not recite specific 

Case: 21-2251 Document: 95 Page: 22 Filed: 08/02/2023
REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC. 23

compression techniques or explain how the data accelerator selects those techniques. The specification simply notes 

that “any” of many “conventional,” “well known,” or “widely 

used” compression techniques can be used. Id. at 1:50–53, 

4:48–54, 16:49–53, 11:31–45, 11:66–12:5, 13:45–57. Neither the claim nor the specification, moreover, explains 

how the storage of the compressed data occurs “faster.” Id. 

at 4:64–5:1 (stating that the “data storage accelerator” is 

“configured to simultaneously or sequentially losslessly 

compress data at a rate equivalent to or faster than the 

transmission rate of an input data stream”).

The representative claim of the ’530 patent is similar

to claim 1 of the ’908 patent but adds storing a compression 

technique “descriptor” and “utiliz[ing]” that descriptor to 

decompress the data. ’530 patent at claim 1. These recitations do not explain how the storage of the compressed data 

occurs “faster,” do not say how the descriptor is implemented, and are at most simply more abstract data manipulation. See Hawk Tech. Sys., LLC v. Castle Retail, LLC, 

60 F.4th 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“[C]onverting information from one format to another—including changing 

the format of video data or compressing it—is an abstract 

idea.”). Requiring the compression to be done using an 

identifier or data descriptor does not make the claims less 

abstract. See PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 8 

F.4th 1310, 1315–18 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (finding that claims 

directed to the use of “an algorithm-generated contentbased identifier to perform the claimed data-management 

functions” were abstract); Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that 

claims for identifying digital data based on “file content 

identifiers” were abstract). 

The representative claim of the ’458 patent is similar 

to those of the ’908 and ’530 patents. It recites a method 

that requires “analyzing” a first and a second data block to 

determine a “parameter” of those data blocks; “applying” 

“encoder[s]” associated with the determined parameters to 

Case: 21-2251 Document: 95 Page: 23 Filed: 08/02/2023
24 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC. 

create a first and second encoded data block wherein the 

encoders “utilize[]” a “lossless dictionary compression technique”; and “storing” the encoded data blocks on a memory 

device, “wherein encoding and storage of the first encoded 

data block occur faster than the first data block is able to 

be stored on the memory device in unencoded form.” ’458 

patent at claim 9. But requiring the analysis of data 

blocks—without explaining how the data is to be analyzed—and the use of lossless compression techniques does 

not make the claim any less abstract. See Hawk, 60 F.4th

at 1357; RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 855 F.3d 

1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[P]rocess that start[s] with 

data, add[s] an algorithm, and end[s] with a new form of 

data [is] directed to an abstract idea.”); PersonalWeb 

Techs., 8 F.4th at 1317 (“Stringing together the claimed 

steps by ‘[a]dding one abstract idea . . . to another,’ . . . amounts merely to the abstract idea of using a 

content-based identifier to perform an abstract data-management function.” (citations omitted)). Neither the claim 

nor the specification explains how the storage of the compressed data occurs “faster.” ’458 patent at 4:67–5:4. 

As for the family 3 patent, the representative claim of 

the ’751 patent recites a method that requires “analyzing 

content of a data block to identify a parameter, attribute, 

or value” of the data block “that excludes analyzing based 

solely on reading a descriptor”; “selecting an encoder” 

based on that parameter; “compressing” the data at a certain rate using a “state machine”; “storing” the data; 

“wherein the time of the compressing the data block and 

the storing the compressed data block is less than the time 

of storing the data block in uncompressed form.” ’751 patent at claim 1. This claim too states the result to be 

achieved: compressing the data block and storing the compressed data block in “less than the time of storing the data 

block in the uncompressed form.” Id. Like the claims of 

the family 2 patents, claim 1 of the ’751 patent does not

explain how to accomplish the result. Nor does the 

Case: 21-2251 Document: 95 Page: 24 Filed: 08/02/2023
REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC. 25

specification meaningfully do so. Id. at 6:28–36 (explaining 

that “accelerated” transmission is “a process of receiving a 

data stream for transmission over a communication channel, compressing the broadcast data . . . at a compression 

rate that increases the effective bandwidth of the communication channel, and transmitting the compressed broadcast data over the communication channel”); see also id. at 

7:11–14. And like the claims of the family 1 patents, claim 

1 of the ’751 patent fails to explain how to “analyze” data. 

In sum, the claims of the asserted patents are “data 

manipulation” claims that are recited at a high “level of result-oriented generality” and that lack “sufficient recitation of how the purported invention[s]” accomplish the 

results. Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH, 

942 F.3d 1143, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). 

They thus “amount[] to a mere implementation of . . . abstract idea[s].” Id. 

Realtime argues that the claims at issue here are like 

those we found eligible in Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA 

Corp., 867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017). See Realtime I, 831 

F. App’x at 496 (“Realtime identified Visual Memory . . . as 

the case most analogous to this one.”). We disagree. The 

claims there recited “an enhanced computer memory system” that used “programmable operational characteristics 

configurable based on the type of processor” to “enabl[e] interoperability with multiple different processors.” Visual 

Memory, 867 F.3d at 1259–60. The patent explained that

the enhanced computer memory system “outperform[ed] a 

prior art memory system . . . armed with ‘a cache many 

times larger than the cumulative size of the subject 

caches.’” Id. at 1259. As we later explained, “[t]he patent 

did not merely claim this enhancement to the computer 

memory system; it explained how it worked, appending 

‘263 frames of computer code.’” Univ. of Fla. Research 

Found., Inc. v. GE Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) 

(distinguishing the claims in Visual Memory). The patents 

here, by contrast, fail to explain the “how.” 

Case: 21-2251 Document: 95 Page: 25 Filed: 08/02/2023
26 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC. 

Because the claims of the asserted patents are directed 

to abstract ideas, we examine the claims at Alice step two 

to determine if the claims are transformed into subject 

matter beyond the abstract ideas themselves. 

B. Alice Step Two

At Alice step two, we look for an “inventive concept”—

“an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to 

ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly 

more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citation and internal quotation 

marks omitted). In so doing, we consider the claim elements—individually and as an ordered combination—“to 

assess whether [they] transform the nature of the claim 

into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea.” 

Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 

874 F.3d 1329, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). 

The inventive concept must amount to more than “well-understood, routine, or conventional activities.” Alice, 573 

U.S. at 225 (cleaned up). And the “mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent 

eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea.” In re TLI 

Commc’ns, LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 

2016). At the same time, “an inventive concept can be 

found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.” BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 

1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

The district court found that the claims from the asserted patents “simply apply an abstract idea on generic 

computers with generic techniques.” Realtime II, 537 F.

Supp. 3d at 616. It thus found that the claims failed Alice

step two. We agree. 

Realtime argues that “the disclosed inventions . . . provide specific, unconventional technological solutions that 

improve computer functionality and overcome problems 

specifically arising in the realm of compression of digital 

Case: 21-2251 Document: 95 Page: 26 Filed: 08/02/2023
REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC. 27

computer data.” Appellant’s Br. 63. But this “amounts to 

no more than a restatement of the assertion that the desired results are an advance.” Am. Axle & Mfg., 967 F.3d 

at 1299. As explained above, the claims here merely claim 

a result and are thus directed to ineligible subject matter. 

“‘[A] claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to 

which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept’ required to cross the line into eligibility.” Id. (quoting BSG 

Tech, 899 F.3d at 1290). 

As for the specific patents, Realtime contends that the

claims of the family 1 patents “require specific, unconventional combinations of specially configured computer elements,” like using content dependent and content 

independent data compression, encoders, and processors. 

Appellant’s Br. 60–61. The common specification of the 

family 1 patents, however, does not purport to require the 

use of any special processor. See, e.g., ’728 patent at 6:32–

37 (“[T]he system modules described herein are preferably 

implemented in software as an application program that is 

executable by, e.g., a general purpose computer or any machine or device having any suitable and preferred microprocessor architecture.”). The same goes for the “encoders.” 

See, e.g., id. at 7:13–17 (“The encoder set . . . may include 

any number . . . of those lossless encoding techniques currently well known within the art . . . .”); id. at 6:30–32 

(“[T]he present invention may be implemented in various 

forms of hardware, software, firmware, or a combination 

thereof.”). And the common specification explains that 

data can be analyzed “using methods known by those 

skilled in the art to extract the data compression type descriptor associated with the data block,” id. at 14:59–64, 

that “there are many conventional content dependent techniques,” id. at 2:67–3:2, and that it was known that the effectiveness of data compression is “highly contingent upon 

the content of the data being compressed,” id. at 2:33–35.

Realtime also argues that “analyzing the data to identify one or more parameters or attributes and performing 

Case: 21-2251 Document: 95 Page: 27 Filed: 08/02/2023
28 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC. 

compression with a plurality of different encoders based on 

that analysis” is a “non-conventional” function and that using “multiple encoders to compress data blocks based on an 

analysis of the specific content or type of the data being encoded without relying solely on a descriptor” is what the 

common specification of the family 1 patents “makes clear” 

is the “inventive concept.” Appellant’s Br. 64–65. But 

these are themselves abstract ideas and thus cannot provide an inventive concept. BSG Tech, 899 F.3d at 1290.

As for the family 2 patents, Realtime contends that 

they solve “problems in conventional digital data compression systems,” like “bandwidth limitations,” by requiring 

“specific, unconventional combinations of specially configured elements.” Appellant’s Br. 61. Realtime, for example, 

points to ’908 patent claim 1’s “memory device” and “data 

accelerator,” the latter of which Realtime argues is “unconventional” because it “requires two different compression 

techniques and the structural capability of compressing 

and storing digital data faster than the digital data can be 

stored in uncompressed form.” Id. But the “memory device” is simply a generic computer component. See ’908 patent at 5:42–47 (“The memory storage device 45 may be 

volatile or non-volatile in nature, or any combination 

thereof. Storage devices as known within the current art 

include all forms of random access memory . . . .”). The 

compression techniques are generic, well-known, and conventional. See, e.g., id. at 1:51–53, 11:31–45, 11:65–12:10, 

13:45–48, 16:52–53. And using a “data accelerator” to store 

data “faster” amounts to using a generic component “to increase the speed or efficiency of the process” and thus “does 

not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.” 

PersonalWeb Techs., 8 F.4th at 1319 (citations omitted). 

Using multiple compression techniques and compressing 

and storing data on a generic component faster than if it 

were uncompressed data, moreover, is an abstract idea and 

cannot provide an inventive concept. BSG Tech, 899 F.3d 

at 1290.

Case: 21-2251 Document: 95 Page: 28 Filed: 08/02/2023
REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC. 29

Realtime also highlights that claim 1 of the ’530 patent 

adds using a descriptor to decompress the compressed 

data. Appellant’s Br. 61–62. The ’530 patent specification, 

however, confirms that using a descriptor to decompress 

data is conventional, explaining that “other data decompression systems and methods known to those skilled in 

the art may be employed for providing accelerated data retrieval.” ’530 patent at 14:42–48. Realtime also directs us 

to an encoder performing compression in claim 1 of the ’458 

patent. Yet neither the claim nor the specification describes specific, unconventional encoding or compression 

techniques. So Realtime’s reliance on the encoder is misplaced. See Adaptive Streaming Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., 836 F. 

App’x 900, 904 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (nonprecedential) (finding 

that claims failed Alice step two where there was “no identification in the claims or written description of specific, 

unconventional encoding, decoding, compression, or broadcasting techniques”).

As for family 3, Realtime asserts that the ’751 patent 

addresses problems in the prior art like “latency” and 

solves them “by providing an unconventional compression 

system allowing for a multiplication of bandwidth and a reduction in transmission latency.” Appellant’s Br. 62. 

Realtime points to claim 25’s requirement of “a data server” 

that is implemented on “processors” and “memory systems,” and that is configured to “analyze” data, “select” an 

encoder, “compress” the data using a “state machine,” and 

“store” the data. Id. But Realtime fails to explain how a 

“data server,” “processor,” and “memory system” are anything but generic computer components, and indeed, “it is 

hard to imagine a patent claim that recites hardware limitations in more generic terms.” In re Bd. of Trs. of Leland 

Stanford Junior Univ., 989 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 

2021) (explaining that patent reciting a method carried out 

by a “computer” with a “processor” and a “memory” failed 

to require a “specialized computer or a computer with a 

specialized memory or processor”). And as for the “state 

Case: 21-2251 Document: 95 Page: 29 Filed: 08/02/2023
30 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC. 

machine,” Realtime has acknowledged that such machines

are “well-known computer components.” J.A. 4921 at 

31:19–20. 

Realtime further contends that the ’751 patent provides “unconventional technological solutions in digital 

data transmission,” by, for instance, providing “transmission and transparent multiplication of digital data communication bandwidth, as well as a potential reduction of the 

latency associated with data transmission of conventional 

systems.” Appellant’s Br. 69. Data transmission, however, 

is an abstract idea that does not provide an inventive concept. See Two-Way Media, 874 F.3d at 1340–41. And 

Realtime’s assertion of a potential reduction of the latency

“amounts to no more than a restatement of the assertion 

that the desired results are an advance.” Am. Axle & Mfg., 

967 F.3d at 1299. 

In short, we see nothing in the individual limitations 

or their ordered combination that transform the claims into 

patent-eligible subject matter. “[M]erely reciting an abstract idea performed on a set of generic computer components, as [the claims] do[] here, would ‘not contain an 

inventive concept.’” Two-Way Media, 874 F.3d at 1339 

(quoting BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1350). 

CONCLUSION

We have considered Realtime’s other arguments and

find them unpersuasive. For the above reasons, we hold 

that the claims of the asserted patents are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. We thus affirm the district 

court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) based on subject-matter ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 21-2251 Document: 95 Page: 30 Filed: 08/02/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

REALTIME DATA LLC, DBA IXO,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

ARRAY NETWORKS INC., NIMBUS DATA, INC.,

Defendants

FORTINET, INC., REDUXIO SYSTEMS, INC., 

QUEST SOFTWARE, INC., CTERA NETWORKS, 

LTD., ARYAKA NETWORKS, INC., OPEN TEXT, 

INC., MONGODB INC., EGNYTE, INC., PANZURA, 

INC.,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2021-2251

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware in No. 1:17-cv-00800-CFC, Chief 

Judge Colm F. Connolly.

-----------------------------------------------

REALTIME DATA LLC, DBA IXO,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

Case: 21-2251 Document: 95 Page: 31 Filed: 08/02/2023
2 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC. 

SPECTRA LOGIC CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2021-2291

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware in No. 1:17-cv-00925-CFC, Chief 

Judge Colm F. Connolly.

______________________ 

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

This is properly an enablement case. The panel today 

invalidates patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by applying the test for judicial exceptions to patent eligibility as 

presented by the Supreme Court in Alice and as enlarged 

by the Federal Circuit. I write separately to note once 

again that § 101 was never intended to bar categories of 

invention in this way. This judicial exception to eligibility 

is an unnecessary and confusing creation of the courts. 

This case is an example, for the enablement requirement 

of § 112 is better suited to determining validity of these 

claims than is the distortion of § 101. I respectfully dissent, 

and would remand for determination of validity under 

§ 112.

The current law of § 101 has diverged from its historical purpose. Numerous scholars, practitioners, and Congresspeople have observed that the current law of § 101 

creates uncertainty and stifles innovation. As I have summarized: 

At the time of the Domestic Policy Review, the 

meaning of § 101 was not a topic of concern. Section 101 was understood as an introduction to the 

statute, not as a limitation on patentable subject 

Case: 21-2251 Document: 95 Page: 32 Filed: 08/02/2023
REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC. 3

matter. The interpretation of patentable subject 

matter today is unsatisfactory; it is time to clarify 

the principles of patentable subject matter, and to 

apply principles supportive of innovation.

Pauline Newman, The Birth of the Federal Circuit, AIPLA 

Q.J. 515, 518 (2022).

Representative Doug Collins, then the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, complained about 

this court’s application of § 101, stating:

It’s unthinkable . . . . The courts have misstated 

the law several times, which deprives many innovative products of adequate protection. Congress 

must establish a new eligibility test to encourage 

investment in developing new U.S. technologies 

and ensure American inventors aren’t at a global 

disadvantage. 

Rep. Doug Collins, Press Release, House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Office of the Ranking Member 

(Oct. 4, 2019), https://republicans-judiciary.house.gov/

press-release/collins-calls-for-new-patent-eligibility-testfollowing-flawed-court-ruling/ (discussing Am. Axle & 

Mfg., Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, 939 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 

2019), opinion withdrawn and replaced by 967 F.3d 1285 

(Fed. Cir. 2020)). 

Senator Chris Coons, chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, recently stated:

More than a decade after the Supreme Court 

waded into patent eligibility law, uncertainty remains about what areas of innovation are eligible 

for patent protection. Critical technologies like 

medical diagnostics and artificial intelligence can 

be protected with patents in Europe and China, but 

not in the United States. 

Case: 21-2251 Document: 95 Page: 33 Filed: 08/02/2023
4 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC. 

Sen. Chris Coons, quoted in Sen. Thom Tillis, Press Release 

(June 22, 2023), https://www.tillis.senate.gov/2023/6/tilliscoons-introduce-landmark-legislation-to-restore-american-innovation. Senator Tillis, ranking member of the 

same subcommittee, added: 

I have long said that clear, strong, and predictable 

patent rights are imperative to enable investments 

in the broad array of innovative technologies that 

are critical to the economic and global competitiveness of the United States, and to its national security . . . . Unfortunately, our current Supreme 

Court’s patent eligibility jurisprudence is undermining American innovation and allowing foreign 

adversaries like China to overtake us in key technology innovations.

Sen. Thom Tillis, id.

Eligibility law has been called a “morass of seemingly 

conflicting judicial decisions.” Michael Xun Liu, Subject 

matter Eligibility and Functional Claiming in Software Patents, 20 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 227, 266 (2018). We should not 

wade further into this morass.

This case is another example that conforms with our 

flawed precedent. I respectfully dissent. I would remand 

for determination of validity under § 112 and, if applicable, 

§§ 102 and 103.

Case: 21-2251 Document: 95 Page: 34 Filed: 08/02/2023