United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES 

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

ZILLOW GROUP, INC., ZILLOW, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2021-2350

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Washington in No. 2:20-cv-00851-TSZ, 

Senior Judge Thomas S. Zilly.

______________________ 

Decided: October 17, 2022 

______________________ 

GOUTAM PATNAIK, Desmarais LLP, Washington, DC, 

argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by JOHN 

M. DESMARAIS, WILLIAM FINDLAY, KARIM ZEDDAM 

OUSSAYEF, New York, NY.

 KATHERINE MARIE PEASLEE, Susman Godfrey LLP, Seattle, WA, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by IAN B. CROSBY, DANIEL J. SHIH; SHAWN DANIEL 

BLACKBURN, Houston, TX.

______________________ 

Case: 21-2350 Document: 46 Page: 1 Filed: 10/17/2022
2 IBM v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC. 

Before REYNA, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. 

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge HUGHES.

Opinion dissenting-in-part filed by Circuit Judge STOLL. 

HUGHES, Circuit Judge.

International Business Machines Corporation sued Zillow Group, Inc. and Zillow, Inc. for infringement of several 

patents related to graphical display technology. The district court granted Zillow’s motion for judgment on the 

pleadings, concluding that two of the asserted patents 

claimed ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 

Because we agree that the patents are directed to abstract 

ideas and lack an inventive concept, we affirm.

I 

IBM owns U.S. Patent No. 9,158,789, which describes

a method for “coordinated geospatial, list-based and filterbased selection.” ’789 patent, at title. A user draws a shape 

on a map to select that area of the map, and the claimed 

system then filters and displays data limited to that area 

of the map. It synchronizes which elements are shown as 

“selected” on the map and its associated list. Claim 8 is representative: 

8. A method for coordinated geospatial and listbased mapping, the operations comprising: 

presenting a map display on a display device, 

wherein the map display comprises elements 

within a viewing area of the map display, 

wherein the elements comprise geospatial characteristics, wherein the elements comprise selected and unselected elements; 

presenting a list display on the display device, 

wherein the list display comprises a customizable list comprising the elements from the map 

display;

Case: 21-2350 Document: 46 Page: 2 Filed: 10/17/2022
IBM v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC. 3

receiving a user input drawing a selection area in 

the viewing area of the map display, wherein the 

selection area is a user determined shape, 

wherein the selection area is smaller than the 

viewing area of the map display, wherein the 

viewing area comprises elements that are visible 

within the map display and are outside the selection area; 

selecting any unselected elements within the selection area in response to the user input drawing 

the selection area and deselecting any selected 

elements outside the selection area in response 

to the user input drawing the selection area; and

synchronizing the map display and the list display 

to concurrently update the selection and deselection of the elements according to the user input, 

the selection and deselection occurring on both 

the map display and the list display.

’789 patent at 9:49–10:8. Figure 5 of the patent depicts an 

embodiment of claim 8:

’789 patent, Fig. 5.

IBM also owns U.S. Patent No. 7,187,389, which describes methods of displaying layered data on a spatially 

oriented display (like a map), based on nonspatial display 

Case: 21-2350 Document: 46 Page: 3 Filed: 10/17/2022
4 IBM v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC. 

attributes (like visual characteristics—color hues, line patterns, shapes, etc.). ’389 patent at 6:5–10. Essentially, the 

’389 patent claims a method of displaying objects in visually distinct layers. Objects in layers of interest can be 

brought to and emphasized at the top of the display while 

other layers are deemphasized. Claim 1 is representative:

1. A method of displaying layered data, said 

method comprising:

selecting one or more objects to be displayed in a 

plurality of layers; 

identifying a plurality of non-spatially distinguishable display attributes, wherein one or more of 

the non-spatially distinguishable display attributes corresponds to each of the layers; 

matching each of the objects to one of the layers; 

applying the non-spatially distinguishable display 

attributes corresponding to the layer for each of 

the matched objects; 

determining a layer order for the plurality of layers, wherein the layer order determines a display emphasis corresponding to the objects from 

the plurality of objects in the corresponding layers; and 

displaying the objects with the applied non-spatially distinguishable display attributes based 

upon the determination, wherein the objects in a 

first layer from the plurality of layers are visually distinguished from the objects in the other 

plurality of layers based upon the non-spatially 

distinguishable display attributes of the first 

layer.

’389 patent at 9:12–34. Dependent claim 2 adds method 

steps for rearranging layers and rematching objects in layers based on a user request. Id. at 9:35–44. 

Case: 21-2350 Document: 46 Page: 4 Filed: 10/17/2022
IBM v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC. 5

IBM’s expert illustrated how the display attributes of 

color and opacity can be used to emphasize different layers 

in a data set. Darkly colored “A” objects are emphasized on 

the left and lightly colored “D” objects are emphasized on 

the right: 

J.A. 20–21.

IBM filed this patent infringement suit against Zillow 

in 2019, alleging that Zillow infringed seven of IBM’s patents. Zillow filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, 

arguing that the claims of four of IBM’s asserted patents 

were patent ineligible under § 101. The district court 

granted Zillow’s motion as to both the ’389 and ’789 patents, concluding that both were “directed to abstract ideas, 

contain[] no inventive concept, and fail[] to recite patentable subject matter.” Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Zillow Grp., 

Inc., 549 F. Supp. 3d 1247, 1264, 1268 (W.D. Wash. 2021)

(Decision). IBM appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

II

We review the grant of a Rule 12 motion under the law 

of the regional circuit. Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 

F.3d 1306, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The Ninth Circuit reviews 

motions granted under Rule 12(c) de novo. Id. (citing 

Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 

2012)). Under this standard, “we determine whether the 

facts alleged in the complaint, taken as true, entitle the 

Case: 21-2350 Document: 46 Page: 5 Filed: 10/17/2022
6 IBM v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC. 

plaintiff to a legal remedy.” Cellspin, 927 F.3d at 1314 (internal quotation omitted). A district court’s determination 

of patent eligibility under § 101 is a question of law that we 

review de novo, applying Federal Circuit law, though the 

inquiry may contain underlying issues of fact. Berkheimer 

v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018). When considering eligibility under a Rule 12 motion, we take the 

facts alleged in the complaint as true. Cellspin, 927 F.3d at

1314.

Section 101 provides that a patent may be obtained for 

“any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or 

composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement 

thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. This provision contains an implicit exception: “Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and 

abstract ideas are not patentable.” Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)

(quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,

Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012)). The Supreme Court has established a two-step framework for evaluating patent eligibility under § 101. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 

217 (2014); Mayo, 566 U.S. at 70–73. At step one, we determine whether a patent claim is directed to an unpatentable 

law of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract idea. Alice, 

573 U.S. at 217. If so, we proceed to step two and determine 

whether the claim nonetheless includes an “inventive concept” sufficient to “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into 

a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. 

at 72, 78). 

III

A 

We first address the ’789 patent, beginning with Alice

step one. “In cases involving software innovations, [the 

step-one] inquiry often turns on whether the claims focus 

on specific asserted improvements in computer capabilities 

or instead on a process or system that qualifies [as] an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a 

Case: 21-2350 Document: 46 Page: 6 Filed: 10/17/2022
IBM v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC. 7

tool.” TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc., 978 F.3d 1278, 1293 (Fed. 

Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). Furthermore, “improving a 

user’s experience while using a computer application is not, 

without more, sufficient to render the claims” patent-eligible at step one. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network 

Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020). 

The district court concluded that “the ’789 Patent is directed to the abstract idea of responding to a user’s selection of a portion of a displayed map by simultaneously 

updating the map and a co-displayed list of items on the 

map.” Decision, 549 F. Supp. 3d at 1266–67. It reasoned 

that claim 8’s method “could be performed by hand, using 

a printed map and related list of items on the map, a transparent overlay, a wet-erase marker, a blank sheet of 

opaque paper, and a knife or scissors.” Id. at 1267. The district court explained that one could put the transparent 

overlay on the map, draw on it with the marker, and then 

block off the “unselected area” of the map and corresponding list items with the opaque paper. Id. To choose a different “selection area,” the user would erase the previous 

marking, remove the paper, and start over. The district 

court noted that “alterations to hardcopy materials were 

made or auditioned in this manner” long before the invention of the computer, and thus concluded that “[t]he ’789 

patent merely contemplates automation using a computer.” Id. 

We agree that the claims here fail to “recite any assertedly inventive technology for improving computers as 

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

1344 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and are instead directed to “an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a 

tool,” TecSec, 978 F.3d at 1293. The claims are directed to 

limiting and coordinating the display of information based 

on a user selection. IBM argues that the ’789 patent is directed to patent-eligible “specific asserted improvement[s]

in computer capabilities,” specifically, “an improved 

[graphical user interface] for displaying, filtering, and 

Case: 21-2350 Document: 46 Page: 7 Filed: 10/17/2022
8 IBM v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC. 

interacting with geospatial data on a map and list display.” 

Appellant’s Br. at 39–40 (first alteration in original) (quoting CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc, 955 F.3d 1358, 1367 

(Fed. Cir. 2020)). In particular, IBM asserts that the patent

improves “the ability of users to identify and analyze relevant data in otherwise large data sets.” Id. at 40.1 

Identifying, analyzing, and presenting certain data to 

a user is not an improvement specific to computing. 

“Merely requiring the selection and manipulation of information—to provide a ‘humanly comprehensible’ amount of 

information useful for users . . . —by itself does not transform the otherwise-abstract processes of information collection and analysis.” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 

830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We have repeatedly 

held claims “directed to collection of information, comprehending the meaning of that collected information, and indication of the results, all on a generic computer network 

operating in its normal, expected manner” to be abstract. 

In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022); see also

Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 

1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (describing cases). The claims 

here recite similarly abstract steps: presenting a map, having a user select a portion of that map, and then synchronizing the map and its corresponding list to display a more 

limited data set to the user. Using a computer to 

1 IBM also argues that the district court erred in interpreting IBM’s proposed construction for the claim term 

“synchronizing.” Appellant’s Br. 34–35. IBM suggests that 

“synchronizing” should have been construed such that any 

concurrent updating of the map and the list must be done 

automatically, “without human involvement”—i.e., requiring the use of a computer. Because we conclude that the 

patent is ineligible under § 101 even if it does require the 

use of a computer, we do not reach that argument on appeal.

Case: 21-2350 Document: 46 Page: 8 Filed: 10/17/2022
IBM v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC. 9

“concurrently update” the map and the list may speed up 

the process, but “mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.” Credit Acceptance 

Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 

2017). 

Furthermore, “a claim that merely describes an ‘effect 

or result dissociated from any method by which [it] is accomplished’” is usually “not directed to patent-eligible subject matter.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 

1244 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (alteration in original) (quoting Internet Pats. Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348 

(Fed. Cir. 2015)). We agree with the district court that the 

’789 patent “is result-oriented, describing required functions (presenting, receiving, selecting, synchronizing), 

without explaining how to accomplish any of the tasks.” Decision, 549 F. Supp. 3d at 1267. It is written in “resultbased functional language” that “does not sufficiently describe how to achieve these results in a non-abstract way.” 

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

874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The claims and specification do not disclose a technical improvement or otherwise suggest that one was achieved. We conclude that the 

’789 patent is directed to an ineligible abstract idea.

B 

Because the ’789 patent is directed to an abstract idea, 

we now turn to Alice step two. “In applying step two of the

Alice analysis, we ‘determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe [the] abstract method’ 

and thus transform the abstract idea into patentable subject matter.” Intell. Ventures I, 850 F.3d at 1341 (alteration 

in original) (quoting Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 

F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). We evaluate whether the 

claims disclose “additional features . . . that constitute an 

inventive concept” and that are “more than wellCase: 21-2350 Document: 46 Page: 9 Filed: 10/17/2022
10 IBM v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC. 

understood, routine, conventional activity.” Id. (internal 

quotations omitted).

The district court concluded that the ’789 patent’s inventive concepts were “just restatements of the abstract 

goals of the invention; they do not teach how the input is 

received or the map and list displays are synchronized” and 

that the patent “requires nothing more than generic computer technology.” Decision, 549 F. Supp. 3d at 1268. On 

appeal, IBM argues that the district court erred because, 

under our decision in Aatrix, “if there are allegations that 

the features of a patent are inventive, the District Court 

must accept that on a Rule 12 motion and cannot weigh the 

evidence or make credibility determinations.” Appellant’s

Br. 48–49 (citing Aatrix Software Inc., v. Green Shades 

Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). It also

argues that the synchronized displays and the “user determined shape” limitations, among others, provide inventive 

concepts sufficient to pass muster under step two. Appellant’s Br. 48.

But the district court need not accept a patent owner’s 

conclusory allegations of inventiveness. We have said that 

“we do not read Aatrix to say that any allegation about inventiveness, wholly divorced from the claims or the specification, defeats a motion to dismiss.” Cellspin, 927 F.3d at 

1317; see also Simio, LLC v. FlexSim Software Prods., Inc.,

983 F.3d 1353, 1365 (Fed Cir. 2020) (“We disregard conclusory statements when evaluating a complaint under Rule 

12(b)(6).”). Only “plausible and specific factual allegations 

that aspects of the claims are inventive are sufficient.” Cellspin, 927 F.3d at 1317. For example, in Cellspin, the patentee “identif[ied] several ways in which its application of 

capturing, transferring, and publishing data was unconventional.” Id. at 1316. It explained how its invention was 

implemented using an unconventional hardware and software structure with novel data transmittance that improved upon the prior art. Id. at 1316–17. This inventive 

“two-step, two-device structure [was] discussed throughout 

Case: 21-2350 Document: 46 Page: 10 Filed: 10/17/2022
IBM v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC. 11

the shared specification.” Id. at 1316. Those allegations of 

inventiveness were enough to overcome a motion to dismiss.

IBM has not made plausible and specific allegations 

that any aspect of the claims is inventive. The cited “synchronizing” and “user determined shape” limitations use 

functional language, at a high level of generality and divorced from any computer technology, to recite the claimed

functions. The limitations simply describe the abstract 

method without providing more. Even if they did require 

the use of a computer, claims to “an abstract idea implemented on generic computer components, without providing a specific technical solution beyond simply using 

generic computer concepts in a conventional way” do not 

suffice at step two. BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. 

AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 

We have previously rejected a similar “synchronization” 

limitation as insignificant post-solution activity when the 

claims did not provide any instructions on how to perform 

the synchronization outside “the addition of conventional 

computer components.” Apple, 842 F.3d at 1241–42. The 

same holds true here. And IBM’s “user determined shape” 

limitation adds nothing more because, as IBM acknowledged, relying on a “user determined shape” to make selections was already known in the prior art. See J.A. 2240

(“Main Idea for Disclosure” from USPTO file history of the 

’789 patent acknowledging “[q]uite a bit of art around selecting a polygon on a map”).

“[T]aken individually or in combination, the recited 

limitations neither improve the functions of the computer 

itself, nor provide specific programming, tailored software, 

or meaningful guidance for implementing the abstract concept.” Intell. Ventures I, 850 F.3d at 1342 (citing Alice, 573 

U.S. at 224). None of the claims recite an inventive concept 

sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. We affirm the 

Case: 21-2350 Document: 46 Page: 11 Filed: 10/17/2022
12 IBM v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC. 

district court’s decision holding that the ’789 patent

claimed ineligible subject matter under § 101. 

IV

A 

We next turn to the ’389 patent, beginning with Alice 

step one.

The district court concluded that the ’389 patent “is directed to the abstract ideas of categorizing and displaying 

information, as well as altering the manner of display upon 

user demand.” Decision, 549 F. Supp. 3d at 1263. It explained that humans have long used nonspatial characteristics like shapes, colors, line patterns, and other visual 

markers to distinguish between visually represented 

items. For example, solid or dashed lines of assorted colors 

have been used on maps to show boundaries and roads. 

These were generated by hand before computers, “and the 

methods disclosed in Claims 1 and 2 could be similarly performed using colored pencils and translucent paper; each 

sheet of paper would display a ‘layer’ within the meaning 

of the ’389 Patent, and the sheets could be arranged, rearranged, and perhaps redrawn as desired to highlight particular objects or groups of objects.” Id.

IBM argues that the district court erred by oversimplifying the patent and “drawing inaccurate analogies to manual methods.” Appellant’s Br. 55. It contends that the 

patent “disclose[s] improvements to the field of [graphical 

user interfaces] for managing networked objects using layered and nonspatial characteristics.” Id. 

We agree with the district court that the ’389 patent is 

directed to the abstract idea of organizing and displaying 

visual information. We have held that “the collection, organization, and display of two sets of information on a generic display device is abstract absent a ‘specific 

improvement to the way computers [or other technologies] 

operate.’” Interval Licensing, 896 F.3d at 1345 (alteration 

Case: 21-2350 Document: 46 Page: 12 Filed: 10/17/2022
IBM v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC. 13

in original) (quoting Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 

F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The representative 

claims here merely organize and arrange sets of visual information into layers and then present said layers on a generic display device. While the claimed methods may speed 

up that organizational process by using a computer, they 

do not recite an improvement in any computing technology. 

Like the graphical user interface we found abstract in 

Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. IBG LLC, the 

’389 patent’s claims “do not improve the functioning of the 

computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any 

technological problem. Instead, they recite a purportedly 

new arrangement of generic information that assists [users] in processing information more quickly.” 921 F.3d 

1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019). 

Furthermore, like the ’789 patent, the ’389 patent “describe[s] various operations (selecting, identifying, matching, re-matching, applying, determining, displaying, 

receiving, and rearranging), without explaining how to accomplish any of the tasks.” Decision, 549 F. Supp. 3d. at

1263. It “does not sufficiently describe how to achieve these 

results in a non-abstract way.” Two-Way Media, 874 F.3d

at 1337. Such functional claim language, without more, is 

insufficient for patentability under our law. See Intell. Ventures I, 850 F.3d. at 1342 (“[T]he claim language here provides only a result-oriented solution, with insufficient 

detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.”). 

IBM argues that its claimed invention is like one we

held patentable in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG 

Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018), because it 

is “directed to particular or specific implementations of presenting information in electronic devices.” Appellant’s 

Br. 58 (citing Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1362–63). Core 

Wireless involved a patent directed to “improved display interfaces” of electronic devices that “allow a user to more 

quickly access desired data stored in, and functions of 

Case: 21-2350 Document: 46 Page: 13 Filed: 10/17/2022
14 IBM v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC. 

applications included in, the electronic devices,” particularly those with small screens like mobile telephones. Core 

Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1359. We held that the asserted 

claims were directed to “an improved user interface for 

computing devices” that was patentable because it addressed problems specific to navigating applications on 

small screens, as repeatedly emphasized by the patent’s 

specification. Id. at 1362–63. We concluded that the specification’s “language clearly indicates that the claims are directed to an improvement in the functioning of computers, 

particularly those with small screens.” Id. at 1363.

Here, representative claim 1 of the ’389 patent is much 

broader than the asserted claims in Core Wireless. It is not

limited to computer screens or any device at all. The 

method it recites (selecting, organizing, and displaying visual information based on non-spatial attributes) has long 

been done by cartographers creating paper maps. See J.A.

2230 (a 1943 U.S. government cartography guide noting 

that “[v]ariations of color and the use of layer coloring and 

shading are now playing an important part for representing different features on the map”). The specification does 

not discuss improvements to specific types of device

screens, only generic displays and computer systems. 

Claims 8 and 12, which disclose an “information handling 

system” and a “computer program product,” ’389 patent at 

10:4–36, 11:1–24, simply take the abstract method recited 

in claim 1 and add generic and conventional computer components for performing it—“the ‘apply it on a computer’ directive that Alice teaches is insufficient to convert abstract 

ideas into patentable subject matter,” Decision, 549 F. 

Supp. 3d at 1263. 

The problem the ’389 patent purportedly solves—i.e., 

that the display of “any system that has large numbers of 

objects in many categories with relationships is difficult to 

understand,” ’389 patent at 2:22–24—is not specific to a 

computing environment. One could encounter this same occlusion problem when looking at a particularly cluttered 

Case: 21-2350 Document: 46 Page: 14 Filed: 10/17/2022
IBM v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC. 15

paper map. And the patent’s solution—to visually present 

information in a way that “aid[s] the user in distinguishing 

between the various displayed layers,” id. at 2:25–28—

could be accomplished using colored pencils and translucent paper, as the district court noted, Decision, 549 F. 

Supp. 3d. at 1263. While moving objects between layers or 

rearranging layers may take longer using the manual 

method, a patent that “automate[s] ‘pen and paper methodologies’ to conserve human resources and minimize errors” is a “quintessential ‘do it on a computer’ patent” 

directed to an abstract idea. Univ. of Fla. Rsch. Found., Inc. 

v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019). So,

unlike the claims in Core Wireless, the ’389 patent does not 

improve any computer function or recite claim limitations 

specific to a computing environment; it addresses the space

limitations of any finite two-dimensional display. The patent’s solution of organizing and displaying information in 

layers is an abstract idea. We thus conclude that the ’389 

patent is directed to an ineligible abstract idea and proceed 

to Alice step two.

B 

At Alice step two, the ’389 patent fares no better. The 

district court concluded that the patent contained no inventive concept because it was not directed to a computerspecific problem and merely used well-understood, routine, 

or conventional technology (a general-purpose computer) to 

more quickly solve the problem of layering and displaying 

visual data. Decision, 549 F. Supp. 3d. at 1263–64. We 

agree. 

IBM argues that the patent’s inventiveness comes from 

“the improvements of the way a computer displays information (not necessarily the type of information) to a user,” 

specifically in using “nonspatial display attributes” (i.e., 

color, lines, etc.), “emphasized layers,” “relayering,” and 

“rematching” elements. Appellant’s Br. 60. It argues that 

“distinguishing data in a nonspatial manner was not 

Case: 21-2350 Document: 46 Page: 15 Filed: 10/17/2022
16 IBM v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC. 

‘purely conventional,’” id. at 61, nor was emphasizing and 

relayering data to bring forth the most salient information, 

id. at 63.

As discussed above, the patent’s purely functional 

steps—of organizing information based on color, lines, or 

other patterns, and then layering and relayering said information—could be done using paper and ink and have

long been done by cartographers. And claims 8 and 12 add 

generic computer components and “merely restate their individual functions”—i.e., selecting, identifying, matching, 

re-matching, applying, determining, displaying, receiving, 

and rearranging—without describing how any of those 

functions are performed. Intell. Ventures I, 850 F.3d at 

1341. “[M]erely describe[ing] the functions of the abstract 

idea itself, without particularity[,] . . . is simply not enough 

under step two.” Id. 

IBM asserts that, in the computer context, “dynamically altering visual characteristics to improve salience and 

reduce the effect of a cluttered screen” is inventive. Appellant’s Br. 63. First, it argues that “relayering allows ‘users 

to dynamically manipulate the visualization to better their 

ability to scrutinize and review the data’ and emphasizes 

objects of interest in a small, cluttered display.” Id. at 64 

(quoting IBM’s expert’s declaration). Second, it argues that

rematching objects to specific layers “increases the efficiency of visually analyzing data because objects can be iteratively added to a ‘hot list’ for ‘special scrutiny’ without 

starting the method over.” Id. at 65. But that dynamic relayering or rematching could also be performed by hand, 

though more slowly—one would have to shuffle paper layers or erase and redraw objects on new layers, but it could 

be done. Any of the patent’s improved efficiency comes not 

from an improvement in the computer but from applying 

the claimed abstract idea to a computer display. “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 patentCase: 21-2350 Document: 46 Page: 16 Filed: 10/17/2022
IBM v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC. 17

eligible application of an abstract idea.” BSG Tech LLC v. 

Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290–91 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 

We see no inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea of organizing and displaying visual information 

into a patent-eligible application of that abstract idea. We 

affirm the district court’s conclusion that the ’389 patent is 

invalid under § 101.

V 

We have considered IBM’s remaining arguments but 

find them unpersuasive. The district court correctly concluded that the ’789 and ’389 patents are directed to ineligible subject matter. We affirm.

AFFIRMED

Case: 21-2350 Document: 46 Page: 17 Filed: 10/17/2022
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES 

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

ZILLOW GROUP, INC., ZILLOW, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2021-2350

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Washington in No. 2:20-cv-00851-TSZ, 

Senior Judge Thomas S. Zilly.

______________________ 

STOLL, Circuit Judge, dissenting-in-part.

I respectfully dissent-in-part. I agree with the majority 

that the district court properly entered judgment under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) holding the ’789 patent claims and several of the ’389 patent claims ineligible 

under 35 U.S.C. § 101. I would, however, reverse the district court’s judgment of patent ineligibility for claims 9 

and 13 of the ’389 patent. The complaint and IBM’s expert 

declaration attached to the complaint contain numerous 

plausible factual allegations that, when accepted as true, 

together with all reasonable inferences, state a plausible 

basis for eligibility. The district court erred by ignoring 

Case: 21-2350 Document: 46 Page: 18 Filed: 10/17/2022
2 IBM v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC. 

these plausible factual allegations and the majority’s affirmance repeats this error. Dismissal was improper. 

Dependent claims 9 and 13 are directed to the same 

subject matter. In particular, both claims recite the same 

alleged technical improvement to the graphical user interface recited in the independent claims: a layered data display tool that allows a user to re-layer and re-match the 

objects in a given layer to emphasize or de-emphasize different objects displayed to the user. Claim 9, shown with 

its dependency from claim 8, recites: 

8. An information handling system comprising:

one or more processors;

a memory accessible by the processors;

a nonvolatile storage area accessible by the processors;

a display screen accessible by the processors; and

a layered data display tool to display layered data 

on the display screen, the layered data display tool 

including:

logic for selecting one or more objects to be 

displayed in a plurality of layers;

identification logic to identify a plurality of 

non-spatially distinguishable

display attributes, wherein one or more of 

the non-spatially distinguishable display 

attributes corresponds to each of the layers;

matching logic for matching each of the objects to one of the layers;

applicator logic to apply the non-spatially 

distinguishable display attributes 

Case: 21-2350 Document: 46 Page: 19 Filed: 10/17/2022
IBM v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC. 3

corresponding to the layer for each of the 

matched objects;

determination logic for determining a layer 

order for the plurality of layers, wherein 

the layer order determines a display emphasis corresponding to the objects from 

the plurality of objects in the corresponding 

layers; and

display control logic to display the objects 

with the applied non-spatially distinguishable display attributes, wherein the objects 

in a first layer from the plurality of layers 

are visually distinguished from the objects 

in the other plurality of layers based upon 

the non-spatially distinguishable display 

attributes of the first layer.

9. The information handling system as described 

in claim 8 further comprising:

a rearranging request received from a user;

rearranging logic to rearrange the displayed layers, the rearranging logic including:

re-matching logic to re-match one or more 

objects to a different layer from the plurality of layers;

application logic to apply the non-spatially 

distinguishable display attributes corresponding to the different layer to the one or 

more re-matched objects; and

display logic to display the one or more rematched objects.

’389 patent col. 10 ll. 4–49 (emphasis added to key limitations). 

Case: 21-2350 Document: 46 Page: 20 Filed: 10/17/2022
4 IBM v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC. 

Our precedent in Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades 

Software, Inc., requires that we accept the plausible factual 

allegations in IBM’s second amended complaint and the expert declaration attached to that complaint as true, and 

that we draw all reasonable inferences in IBM’s favor. 

882 F.3d 1121, 1126–28 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also, e.g., Nat. 

Alts. Int’l, Inc. v. Creative Compounds, LLC, 918 F.3d 1338, 

1349 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Cooperative Ent., Inc. v. Kollective 

Tech., Inc., No. 21-2167, slip op. at 5 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 28, 

2022) (“[P]atent eligibility may be resolved at the Rule 12 

stage only if there are no plausible factual disputes after 

drawing all reasonable inferences from the intrinsic and 

Rule 12 record in favor of the non-movant.” (collecting 

cases)). Here, there are numerous factual impediments to 

resolving the eligibility question for claims 9 and 13 at this 

stage. 

First, IBM’s second amended complaint describes the 

development of the claimed invention, including problems 

with prior art approaches to displaying objects on a computer’s two-dimensional display. For example, the complaint alleges that, as data systems became larger and 

more complex, prior art methods for displaying objects to a 

user on a two-dimensional computer screen “resulted in an 

overly cluttered display with various objects overlapping 

each other. This made it difficult, if not impossible, to determine the relevant details of and relationships between 

the information that a user was attempting to view.” 

J.A. 112–13 (Compl. ¶ 86). Indeed, the ’389 patent itself 

acknowledges that it was “difficult to conceptually understand” systems with “large numbers of objects” using the 

tools available at the time of the invention. ’389 patent

col. 2 ll. 22–24. 

Likewise, the expert declaration attached to the complaint explains that prior art methods for displaying large 

amounts of “densely packed” data on a computer screen

rendered the displayed data “incomprehensible.” J.A. 198 

(Cockburn Decl. ¶ 19); see generally J.A. 201–11 (Cockburn 

Case: 21-2350 Document: 46 Page: 21 Filed: 10/17/2022
IBM v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC. 5

Decl. ¶¶ 26–51). IBM’s technical expert further explains 

how the use of layers in the claimed invention solved “the 

important problem of occlusion” resulting from the densely 

packed data. J.A. 219 ¶ 78. The expert also provides specific factual details related to how the claim limitations of 

re-layering and rematching “allows users to dynamically 

manipulate the visualization” of data on the computer display “to better support their ability to scrutinize and review 

the data.” J.A. 221 ¶ 83. 

Taking the above factual allegations in the complaint 

and attached expert declaration as true, together with all 

reasonable inferences, establishes that the claimed re-layering and re-matching system recited in claims 9 and 13 is 

directed to a technical improvement in how a user interacts 

with a computer via the graphical user interface, not an 

abstract idea. And we have held inventions directed to improvements to a graphical user interface patent eligible. 

See, e.g., Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 

880 F.3d 1356, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Data Engine

Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999, 1007–11

(Fed. Cir. 2018). 

The majority asserts that “[t]he problem the ’389 patent purportedly solves . . . is not specific to a computing 

environment” and that claim 1, broadly drafted, likewise is 

not “limited to computer screens or any device at all.” Maj. 

Op. at 14. From there, the majority concludes that all of

the ’389 patent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Id.

at 14–15. In my view, the majority views claims 9 and 13 

at too high a level of abstraction. While I agree that claim 

1 and its dependent claims are broadly drafted, claims 9 

and 13 are not so broad; instead, they are directed to a specific improvement in a computer’s graphical user interface, 

much like the claims we held eligible in Core Wireless. The 

majority also analogizes the claimed invention to techniques allegedly used by cartographers when making “cluttered paper map[s].” Id. But unlike paper maps, computer 

displays are limited in size and can be interacted with by a 

Case: 21-2350 Document: 46 Page: 22 Filed: 10/17/2022
6 IBM v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC. 

user to repeatedly and variously alter the display using the 

specific reordering technique recited in claims 9 and 13. 

When taking the assertions in the complaint and attached 

expert declaration as true, a plausible conclusion can be 

made that claims 9 and 13 are not simply directed to a system that automates a “pen and paper” method; rather, they 

recite a specific technique to solve a specific technical problem that existed in graphical user interfaces at the time of 

the invention. 

In sum, the district court did not accept the complaint’s

well-pled facts relevant to the eligibility inquiry as true. 

Instead, it wholesale ignored these factual allegations in 

holding claims 9 and 13 of the ’389 patent ineligible. This 

is legal error under our precedent, and we should reverse.

For these reasons, I respectfully dissent-in-part.

Case: 21-2350 Document: 46 Page: 23 Filed: 10/17/2022