United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

CXLOYALTY, INC.,

Appellant

v.

MARITZ HOLDINGS INC.,

Cross-Appellant

______________________

2020-1307, 2020-1309

______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. CBM2018-

00037.

______________________

Decided: February 8, 2021

______________________

STEVEN M. LIEBERMAN, Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & 

Manbeck, PC, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also 

represented by DAVID LAWSON ALLEN, JENNY COLGATE.

 ROBERT M. EVANS, JR., Lewis Rice LLC, St. Louis, MO,

argued for cross-appellant. Also represented by MICHAEL 

J. HARTLEY.

 ______________________

Before PROST, Chief Judge, LOURIE and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges.

Case: 20-1307 Document: 43 Page: 1 Filed: 02/08/2021
2 CXLOYALTY, INC. v. MARITZ HOLDINGS INC.

PROST, Chief Judge.

cxLoyalty, Inc. (“cxLoyalty”) petitioned for a covered 

business method (“CBM”) review of claims 1–15 of U.S. Patent No. 7,134,087 (“the ’087 patent”), which is owned by 

Maritz Holdings Inc. (“Maritz”). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) instituted CBM review and concluded 

that original claims 1–15 are ineligible for patenting under 

35 U.S.C. § 101 but that proposed substitute claims 16–23

are patent eligible. See cxLoyalty, Inc. v. Maritz Holdings 

Inc., No. CBM2018-00037, Paper 36, 2019 Pat. App. 

LEXIS 13178 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2019) (“Decision”). cxLoyalty appealed the Board’s ruling as to the substitute claims, 

and Maritz cross-appealed both the Board’s determination

that the ’087 patent is eligible for CBM review and the 

Board’s ruling as to the original claims. 

We do not have authority to entertain Maritz’s challenge to the CBM eligibility of the ’087 patent. SIPCO, 

LLC v. Emerson Elec. Co., 980 F.3d 865, 867 (Fed. Cir.

2020). As to the merits, we conclude that both the original 

and substitute claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under § 101. We therefore dismiss Maritz’s 

CBM eligibility challenge, affirm the Board’s determination as to the original claims, and reverse the Board’s determination as to the proposed substitute claims. 

BACKGROUND

I

Customer loyalty programs “issue points to customers 

. . . as a reward for certain activities” and “allow[] the customer[s] to redeem the points” for various goods and services. ’087 patent col. 1 ll. 16–23. The purpose of such 

programs is to “create a loyalty or affinity with the customer and encourage the customer to continue a desired 

behavior.” Id. at col. 1 ll. 19–21.

Before the invention of the ’087 patent, loyalty programs frequently “provide[d] the customer with a limited 

Case: 20-1307 Document: 43 Page: 2 Filed: 02/08/2021
CXLOYALTY, INC. v. MARITZ HOLDINGS INC. 3

listing of rewards from selected redemption vendors in the 

form of merchandise, certificates, or other products or services . . . and the number of points needed to obtain one of 

the rewards from the list.” Id. at col. 1 ll. 24–29. The customer could then select a reward and relay that selection 

to the loyalty program. Id. at col. 1 ll. 31–34. In response, 

“[t]he loyalty program [would] obtain[] the product or service on behalf of the customer from one of the limited number of selective redemption vendors and provide[] it to the 

customer.” Id. at col. 1 ll. 34–37. 

The ’087 patent explains:

Some rewards are of a nature that human intervention is needed to redeem/fulfill [them]. For example, if the customer selects a roundtrip airline 

ticket, the loyalty program on behalf of the customer or the customer directly would purchase the 

ticket through a selected travel agent or a selected 

airline employee and provide the ticket (or have it 

sent) to the customer. 

Id. at col. 1 ll. 37–43. 

The invention of the ’087 patent “eliminate[s] the human intervention” needed “to redeem such rewards.” Id. 

at col. 1 ll. 49–50. The ’087 patent relates to a system and 

method for permitting a customer of a loyalty program to 

redeem loyalty points for rewards offered by vendors without the need for human intervention. More specifically, a

graphical user interface (“GUI”) provides the interface for 

the participant (i.e., a customer) to communicate with a 

web-based vendor system, such as an airline-reservation 

system. Id. at col. 2 ll. 14–26, col. 4 ll. 11–29. An application programming interface (“API”) interfaces with the 

GUI and the vendor system to facilitate information transfer between them. Id. at col. 2 ll. 11–16.

The API receives vendor-related information from the 

vendor system, such as “a listing of the [products] available 

Case: 20-1307 Document: 43 Page: 3 Filed: 02/08/2021
4 CXLOYALTY, INC. v. MARITZ HOLDINGS INC.

and the price of each.” Id. at col. 6 ll. 34–38; id. at claim 1. 

The vendor-related information is then “provided via the 

API to the GUI which . . . then provide[s] the vendor[-related] information to the participant.” Id. at col. 6 ll. 38–

41. 

The GUI receives participant-related information from 

the participant, such as the participant’s name, address, 

and selection of goods or services to purchase in exchange 

for points. Id. at col. 2 ll. 15–18, col. 6 ll. 18–26. After receiving this information, the GUI interfaces with the loyalty program and the participant’s point account to ensure 

that the participant has enough points to make the desired 

purchase. Id. at col. 4 ll. 29–33. If so, the GUI purchases 

the desired item with a program account, such as a cash 

account or shadow credit card, that is connected to the loyalty program. Id. at col. 4 ll. 33–41. The GUI completes 

this transaction by providing the participant-related information (including the purchase request) and the program 

account information to the API, which provides that information to the vendor system to make the purchase. Id.

at col. 4 ll. 47–50, col. 5 ll. 55–58. The specification explains that the API’s function of “transmitting information 

to the vendor system” is its “standard function.” Id.

at col. 7 ll. 9–14.

The system may complete the purchase with a 

“shadow” credit card—a credit card that is “hidden or 

‘shadowed’ from the participant so that the participant is 

not aware that the transaction is actually being transacted 

using the shadow credit card or other program account.” 

Id. at col. 4 ll. 42–47. Instead, from the participant’s perspective, the “transaction with the vendor system [occurred] based in whole or in part on the points in the 

participant’s point account.” Id. at col. 3 ll. 6–9. At the 

same time, from the vendor system’s perspective, the 

transaction occurred “with the participant based on the 

program account.” Id. at col. 3 ll. 9–12. 

Case: 20-1307 Document: 43 Page: 4 Filed: 02/08/2021
CXLOYALTY, INC. v. MARITZ HOLDINGS INC. 5

After completing the transaction, the GUI advises the 

loyalty program when the transaction has been completed 

“so that the loyalty program can deduct the appropriate 

points from the participant’s point account.” Id. at col. 4 

ll. 50–53. 

Claim 1 is representative of the original claims and 

provides:

1. A computerized system for use by a participant 

of a program which awards points to the participant, wherein the awarded points are maintained 

in a point account for the participant, said system 

for permitting the participant to transact a purchase using the awarded points with a vendor system which transacts purchases in currency, said 

system comprising a processor including instructions for defining:

an application programming interface (API) for interfacing with the vendor system;

a program account hidden from the participant 

connected to the program for use in currency transactions;

a graphical user interface (GUI) for providing an 

interface between the participant and the API and 

for communicating with the program;

wherein said GUI includes instructions for receiving participant-related information from the participant and providing the received participantrelated information to the API;

wherein said GUI includes instructions for receiving information regarding the program account 

hidden from the participant and for providing the 

received program account information to the API;

wherein said API is adapted to receive the participant-related information and the program account 

Case: 20-1307 Document: 43 Page: 5 Filed: 02/08/2021
6 CXLOYALTY, INC. v. MARITZ HOLDINGS INC.

information from the GUI and adapted to provide 

the received participant-related information and 

the received program account information to the 

vendor system;

wherein said API is adapted to receive vendor-related information from the vendor system and 

adapted to provide the received vendor-related information to the GUI; and

wherein said GUI includes [i]nstructions for receiving vendor-related information from the API and 

for providing the received vendor-related information to the participant;

such that from the perspective of the participant, 

the participant uses the GUI to conduct a purchase 

transaction with the vendor system based in whole 

or in part on the points in the participant’s point 

account; and

such that from the perspective of the vendor system, the vendor system conducts the purchase 

transaction with the participant as a currency 

transaction based on the program’s program account hidden from the participant whereby the participant is not aware that the purchase transaction 

with the vendor system is being transacted using 

program account.

’087 patent claim 1.

Substitute claims 16 and 22 are representative of the 

substitute claims. Compared with claim 1, substitute 

claim 16 adds in relevant part that the GUI includes instructions for converting the vendor-related information 

from the format of the vendor system into a format of the 

GUI. Claim 16 provides (with underlines indicating language added to original claim 1 and brackets indicating

language removed):

Case: 20-1307 Document: 43 Page: 6 Filed: 02/08/2021
CXLOYALTY, INC. v. MARITZ HOLDINGS INC. 7

16 (replaces claim 1): A computerized system for 

use by [[a]] participants of a program which awards 

points to the participants, wherein the awarded 

points for each participant are maintained in a 

point account for the respective participant, said 

system for permitting [[the]] each participant to 

transact a purchase using the respective awarded 

points with a vendor system which transacts purchases in currency, said system comprising a processor including instructions for defining:

an application programming interface (API) for interfacing with the vendor system;

a program account hidden from the participants

connected to the program for use in currency transactions;

a program database storing information about the 

program including a listing of the point accounts of 

the participants;

a graphical user interface (GUI) for providing an 

interface between the participants and the API and 

for communicating with the program, wherein the 

GUI is configured so that the participants can connect to the GUI using an internet connection;

wherein said GUI includes instructions for receiving participant-related information from [[the]] 

each participant via the internet connection and 

providing the received participant-related information to the API;

wherein said GUI includes instructions for receiving information regarding the program account 

hidden from the participants and for providing the 

received program account information to the API;

wherein said API is adapted to receive the participant-related information and the program account 

Case: 20-1307 Document: 43 Page: 7 Filed: 02/08/2021
8 CXLOYALTY, INC. v. MARITZ HOLDINGS INC.

information from the GUI and adapted to provide 

the received participant-related information and 

the received program account information to the 

vendor system;

wherein said API is adapted to receive vendor-related information from the vendor system in a format of the vendor system and adapted to provide 

the received vendor-related information to the 

GUI; [[and]]

wherein said GUI includes instructions for receiving vendor-related information from the API, for 

converting the received vendor-related information 

from the format of the vendor system into a format 

of the GUI, and for providing the received vendorrelated information to the participants in the format of the GUI via the internet connection;

wherein the computerized system is configured to 

use the program account to complete purchase 

transactions with the vendor system based on participant-related information received from the participants via the internet connection including 

purchase requests based on points; and

wherein in response to each completed purchase 

transaction, the computerized system is configured 

to store an indication of the completed purchase 

transaction in the program database and display 

an order message indicating the completion of the 

purchase transaction to the respective participant;

such that from the perspective of the participants, 

the participants use[[s]] the GUI to conduct [[a]] 

the purchase transactions with the vendor system 

based in whole or in part on the points in [[the]] 

each participant’s point account; and

such that from the perspective of the vendor system, the vendor system conducts the purchase 

Case: 20-1307 Document: 43 Page: 8 Filed: 02/08/2021
CXLOYALTY, INC. v. MARITZ HOLDINGS INC. 9

transactions with the participants as [[a]] currency 

transactions based on the program’s program account hidden from the participants whereby the 

participants [[is]] are not aware that the purchase 

transactions with the vendor system [[is]] are being 

transacted using the program account.

J.A. 413–15.

Compared with claim 1, substitute claim 22 adds in 

relevant part that the GUI communicates with multiple 

APIs having corresponding vendor systems, allowing participants to use the GUI to make points-based purchases 

directly from multiple third-party vendor systems. 

Claim 22 provides (with underlines indicating language 

added to original claim 13 and brackets indicating language removed): 

22 (replaces claim 13): A computerized system for 

permitting a participant to transact a purchase using awarded points with a vendor system which 

transacts purchases in currency, said system comprising a processor including instructions for defining:

a loyalty program which awards points to a participant, wherein the awarded points are maintained 

in a point account for the participant;

an application programming interface (API) for interfacing with the vendor system;

a program account hidden from the participant 

connected to the program for use in currency transactions;

a program database storing information about the 

loyalty program including a listing of point accounts of a plurality of users of the loyalty program 

including the participant;

Case: 20-1307 Document: 43 Page: 9 Filed: 02/08/2021
10 CXLOYALTY, INC. v. MARITZ HOLDINGS INC.

a graphical user interface (GUI) for providing an 

interface between the participant and the API and 

for communicating with the program, wherein the 

GUI is configured so that the participant can connect to the GUI using an internet connection;

wherein said GUI includes instructions for:

receiving participant-related information from the 

participant via the internet connection and providing the received participant-related information to 

the API;

receiving a purchase request from the participant 

via the internet connection to conduct a purchase 

with the vendor system based on the points in the 

participant’s point account;

receiving information regarding the program account hidden from the participant from the loyalty 

program;

converting the received purchase request based on 

the points into a corresponding purchase request 

based on the program account information if the 

point account has sufficient points to cover the purchase; [[and]]

providing the corresponding purchase request 

based on the program account information to the 

API wherein the API is adapted to receive the corresponding purchase request from the GUI and 

provide the received corresponding purchase request to the vendor system as a purchase request 

based on the program account information;

based on the purchase request, completing a purchase transaction with the vendor system on behalf 

of the participant using the program account;

receiving a vendor purchase confirmation from the 

vendor system, the vendor purchase confirmation 

Case: 20-1307 Document: 43 Page: 10 Filed: 02/08/2021
CXLOYALTY, INC. v. MARITZ HOLDINGS INC. 11

comprising a record of the order being successfully 

placed based on the program account information; 

and

in response to receiving the vendor purchase confirmation:

storing an indication of the completed purchase transaction in the program database; 

and displaying an order message to the 

participant indicating the completion of the 

purchase transaction;

wherein said API is adapted to receive the participant-related information from the GUI and to provide the received participant-related information 

to the vendor system;

wherein said API is adapted to receive vendor-related information from the vendor system and provide the received vendor-related information to the 

GUI; and

wherein said GUI includes instructions for receiving vendor-related information from the API and 

providing the received vendor-related information 

to the participant via the internet connection;

such that from the perspective of the participant, 

the participant uses the GUI to conduct a purchase 

transaction with the vendor system based in whole 

or in part on the points in the participant’s point 

account; and

such that from the perspective of the vendor system, the vendor system conducts the purchase 

transaction with the participant based on the loyalty program’s program account hidden from the 

participant whereby the participant is not aware 

that the purchase transaction with the vendor system is being transacted using the program account;

Case: 20-1307 Document: 43 Page: 11 Filed: 02/08/2021
12 CXLOYALTY, INC. v. MARITZ HOLDINGS INC.

wherein the API comprises an airline reservation 

system API and the vendor system comprises an 

airline reservation system; and

wherein the processor further includes instructions 

for providing another vendor system API for interfacing with another vendor system of a vendor that 

sells other goods or services, the other vendor system API being adapted to:

receive the participant-related information 

from the GUI and provide the received participant-related information to said other 

vendor system; and

receive vendor-related information from 

said other vendor system and provide the 

received vendor-related information from 

said other vendor system to the GUI.

J.A. 425–28.

II

The Board concluded that the ’087 patent is eligible for 

CBM review, that the original claims are patent ineligible 

under § 101, and that the substitute claims are patent eligible.

As to the original claims, the Board determined that 

claim 1 was illustrative. Decision, at 7. The Board concluded: 

Petitioner has shown persuasively that, by virtue 

of the limitations reproduced above, claim 1, as a 

whole, recites facilitating, or brokering, a commercial transaction (i.e., the sale and purchase of goods 

and services) between a purchaser using a first 

form of value (i.e., a rewards program participant 

using points in whole or in part) and a seller transacting in a second form of value (i.e., a vendor system which transacts purchases in currency). 

Case: 20-1307 Document: 43 Page: 12 Filed: 02/08/2021
CXLOYALTY, INC. v. MARITZ HOLDINGS INC. 13

Decision, at 28. The Board explained that such activity 

“amount[s] to a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in commerce” and, therefore, claim 1 was directed to 

an abstract idea. Id. 

The Board also determined that “Petitioner has shown 

persuasively that claim 1 does not recite any element or 

combination of elements that would transform the claim 

into a patent-eligible application of the alleged abstract 

idea.” Id. at 47. Rather, “[c]laim 1 merely recites generic 

and conventional computer components . . . and functionality for carrying out” the abstract idea. Id.; see also id. at 49. 

Maritz argued that claim 1 was directed to more than 

an abstract idea because it permitted a participant to redeem points for rewards “without knowing that the actual 

transaction is a currency transaction at less than the perceived price.” Id. at 32 (emphasis omitted). The Board rejected this argument for two reasons: first because claim 1 

“does not include any requirement that the value of the 

transaction be concealed from the participant,” and second 

because claim 1 is directed to the above-identified abstract 

idea regardless. Id. at 34–37. 

The Board concluded that the substitute claims were 

directed to the same abstract idea as the original claims. 

Id. at 81–82, 94–95. Unlike for the original claims, however, the Board concluded that the substitute claims contained an inventive concept. Id. at 83, 89, 95, 97. The 

Board focused heavily on the fact that although cxLoyalty 

opposed the motion to amend, it “did not submit any [new]

testimony . . . or other . . . evidence” in support of its opposition to the motion, relying instead on the same evidence

it submitted with respect to the original claims. Id. at 84. 

Conversely, Maritz did submit new expert testimony specifically supporting the motion to amend. Id. at 88–89; see 

also id. at 97; J.A. 1753–67 (Weiner Decl. in Support of 

Case: 20-1307 Document: 43 Page: 13 Filed: 02/08/2021
14 CXLOYALTY, INC. v. MARITZ HOLDINGS INC.

Patent Owner’s Mot. to Amend).1 The Board concluded, 

based primarily on Maritz’s expert testimony, that cxLoyalty had “not made a sufficient showing that the [substitute 

claims] lack[] an inventive concept.” Decision, at 88–91, 

95–97.

cxLoyalty appealed and Maritz cross-appealed. We 

have jurisdiction to review the Board’s final written decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) and 35 U.S.C. § 329.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, cxLoyalty challenges the Board’s determination that substitute claims 16–23 are patent eligible under § 101. On cross-appeal, Maritz challenges the Board’s 

determination that the ’087 patent is eligible for CBM review and the Board’s conclusion that original claims 1–15 

are patent ineligible under § 101. We address Maritz’s 

cross-appeal first. 

I

In its briefing, Maritz argued that “[c]xLoyalty did not 

satisfy its burden of establishing that the ’087 patent is eligible for CBM review.” Maritz’s Op. Br. 24. After the close 

of briefing but before oral argument, this court decided

SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Electric Co., in which we 

1 Throughout its Final Written Decision, the Board 

repeatedly referred to the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019). We note that 

this guidance “is not, itself, the law of patent eligibility, 

does not carry the force of law, and is not binding on our 

patent eligibility analysis.” In re Rudy, 956 F.3d 1379, 

1382 (Fed. Cir. 2020). And to the extent the guidance “contradicts or does not fully accord with our caselaw, it is our 

caselaw, and the Supreme Court precedent it is based 

upon, that must control.” Id. at 1383. 

Case: 20-1307 Document: 43 Page: 14 Filed: 02/08/2021
CXLOYALTY, INC. v. MARITZ HOLDINGS INC. 15

explained that “[t]he Supreme Court’s decision in Thryv . . . 

makes clear that the threshold determination” that a “patent qualifies for CBM review is a decision that is non-appealable under 35 U.S.C. § 324(e).” 980 F.3d 865, 867 

(Fed. Cir. 2020). We concluded that we were therefore

“precluded from reviewing” this “challenge to that threshold determination.” Id. As Maritz acknowledged during 

oral argument,2 SIPCO forecloses Maritz’s CBM eligibility 

challenge. 

II

Now we turn to the merits of the Board’s § 101 decision. 

Patent eligibility under § 101 is “ultimately an issue of law 

we review de novo,” but the inquiry “may contain underlying issues of fact.” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 

1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Supreme Court has established 

a two-step framework for evaluating patent eligibility. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014); Mayo 

Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 

70–73 (2012). First, we ascertain whether a patent claim 

is directed to an unpatentable law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. If so, we 

next 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).

A

We conclude that the original claims are ineligible for 

patenting under § 101.

As to step one, we agree with the Board that representative claim 1 is directed to “facilitating, or brokering, a 

2 Oral Arg. at 10:45–11:20, 12:04–14, No. 2020-

1307, http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings. 

Case: 20-1307 Document: 43 Page: 15 Filed: 02/08/2021
16 CXLOYALTY, INC. v. MARITZ HOLDINGS INC.

commercial transaction (i.e., the sale and purchase of goods 

and services) between a purchaser using a first form of 

value (i.e., a rewards program participant using points in 

whole or in part) and a seller transacting in a second form 

of value (i.e., a vendor system which transacts purchases 

in currency).” Decision, at 28. The system of claim 1 facilitates such a transaction via transfers of information between the participant, vendor system, and the 

intermediary (the GUI and API). Humans have long intermediated these very transactions by collecting and relaying 

the very same information. See, e.g., ’087 patent, col. 1 

ll. 34–37; Maritz’s Op. Br. 5–7; Decision, at 29–31;

J.A. 921, 1453–54 (Knowles Decl.), 1654–56 (Weiner Decl.). 

As the Board noted, “[t]he GUI in claim 1 takes the place 

of the human acting as an intermediary, communicating 

with both the participant and the vendor (via the API) to 

complete the transaction.” Decision, at 30–31. Because 

representative claim 1 is directed to transfers of information relating to a longstanding commercial practice, the 

claim is directed to an abstract idea. See, e.g., Alice, 

573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 

(2010); see also Elec. Commc’n Techs., LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC, 958 F.3d 1178, 1181–82 (Fed. Cir.

2020).

The claims also fail at step two. The claims amount to 

nothing more than applying the above-identified abstract 

idea using techniques that are, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination, well-understood, 

routine, and conventional. The claims apply the abstract 

idea on a computer by replacing the human intermediary 

with a GUI and API, but as the Board concluded, representative claim 1 “merely recites generic and conventional 

computer components (i.e., ‘processor,’ ‘GUI,’ and ‘API’) and 

functionality for carrying out” the abstract idea. Decision, 

at 47. And the “communication of information by GUIs and 

APIs” was “well-known in the prior art.” Id. at 49; see also

id. at 47–51. Accordingly, the claims do not survive step 

Case: 20-1307 Document: 43 Page: 16 Filed: 02/08/2021
CXLOYALTY, INC. v. MARITZ HOLDINGS INC. 17

two. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 218–25 (“[T]he relevant 

question is whether the claims here do more than simply 

instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea of 

intermediated settlement on a generic computer. . . . They 

do not [because the claimed process steps are] well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies].” (third alteration 

in original)); Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73, 82 (explaining that 

“simply appending conventional steps, specified at a high 

level of generality, to laws of nature, natural phenomena, 

and abstract ideas cannot make those laws, phenomena, 

and ideas patentable”); Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 

927 F.3d 1306, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“An inventive concept 

reflects something more than the application of an abstract 

idea using well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Maritz argues that claim 1 is eligible for patenting because the claimed invention “conceals the nature of the 

transaction between the participant and the vendor system 

such that the participant can redeem points for goods/services without knowing that the actual transaction is a currency transaction at less than the perceived price.” 

Maritz’s Op. Br. 32. We disagree.

As an initial matter, and as the Board noted, the claims 

do not require that the actual dollar amount of the transaction be hidden from the participant. See Decision, at 34. 

In any event, the claims would be ineligible even if they did 

include such a requirement because the requirement would 

also constitute part of the abstract idea. Indeed, loyalty 

program intermediaries have long brokered loyalty program transactions in a manner where, from the participant’s perspective, the actual price paid by the loyalty 

program is withheld from the participant. See, e.g., 

Maritz’s Op. Br. 5–7; J.A. 1653–56 (Weiner Decl.).

Maritz also argues that the claims are eligible under 

§ 101 because they recite novel and nonobvious subject 

Case: 20-1307 Document: 43 Page: 17 Filed: 02/08/2021
18 CXLOYALTY, INC. v. MARITZ HOLDINGS INC.

matter. See, e.g., Maritz’s Op. Br. 21, 40. However, even if

“[w]e may assume that the techniques claimed are 

‘[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,’ . . . that is 

not enough for eligibility.” See, e.g., SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting 

Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 

U.S. 576, 591 (2013)); see also id. (concluding that it is not 

“enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art”). 

Maritz further contends that the claims are patent eligible at one or both steps because they recite a “novel combination of technical elements” that provides “technological 

solutions to [a] technological problem within the loyalty 

awards industry.” Maritz’s Op. Br. 45–46, 61–64; see, e.g., 

Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 

1300–01 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding claim eligible at step two 

because it “entails an unconventional technological solution . . . to a technological problem,” and the solution “requires that arguably generic components . . . operate in an 

unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality”); BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. 

v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350–51 (Fed. Cir. 

2016) (holding claims eligible at step two because the 

claims recited a “technical improvement over prior art 

ways of filtering . . . content” that “improve[s] the performance of the computer system itself”). Maritz points to expert testimony in support. J.A. 1634–90 (Weiner Decl.). 

For the reasons provided above, the claims are directed 

to an abstract idea, and they implement the abstract idea

using conventional techniques; the claims are not directed 

to a technological solution to a technological problem. Although Maritz points to expert testimony, that testimony 

merely labels, in conclusory fashion, the invention as a 

technological solution to a technological problem. We do 

not accord weight to conclusory expert testimony. See TQ 

Delta, LLC v. CISCO Sys., Inc., 942 F.3d 1352, 1359 n.5, 

1360 (Fed. Cir. 2019).

Case: 20-1307 Document: 43 Page: 18 Filed: 02/08/2021
CXLOYALTY, INC. v. MARITZ HOLDINGS INC. 19

To the extent Maritz identifies what it contends constitutes a technological problem, it appears to be “the problem 

of connecting the loyalty awards system with those of thirdparty vendors while keeping the overall nature of the 

transaction hidden.” Maritz’s Op. Br. 45. But as we have 

already explained, the claims do not recite a solution to 

that problem. Even if the claims did, that is not a technological problem requiring a solution that improves the performance of the computer system itself. Indeed, Maritz 

contends that the claimed solution is the hidden program 

account that conceals the nature of the transaction between the participant and the vendor system. E.g., Id. 

at 32. But Maritz does not contend that the claimed invention improves the use of computers as a tool by reciting a 

new technological way for computers to conceal such information. Rather, the claims solve this purported problem 

by applying an abstract idea using conventional techniques 

specified in functional terms and at a high degree of generality.

Furthermore, the claims provide no useful guidance as 

to how this purported function is achieved and thus cannot 

be directed to a technological solution. See, e.g., Univ. of 

Fla. Res. Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 

1368–69 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (holding claims relating to format 

conversion ineligible where the “drivers [were] described in 

purely functional terms” and the claims did not “explain[] 

how the drivers do the conversion that [the patent owner] 

points to”).

For these reasons, we conclude that the original claims 

are ineligible under § 101.

B

We also conclude that the substitute claims are also ineligible under § 101. We discuss representative claims 16 

and 22 in turn. 

Case: 20-1307 Document: 43 Page: 19 Filed: 02/08/2021
20 CXLOYALTY, INC. v. MARITZ HOLDINGS INC.

1

Claim 16 is ineligible under § 101 for the same reasons 

as claim 1. Maritz attempts to distinguish claim 16 at both 

steps one and two on the basis of its added requirement 

that the GUI “is able to convert vendor-related information 

into information formatted for the GUI, which GUIformatted information may then be provided to the claimed 

participants.”3 Maritz’s Op. Br. 44. 

Maritz argues that the added limitation constitutes a 

technological solution to a technological problem. However, Maritz does not contend that the claimed invention 

improves the use of computers as a tool by reciting a new 

way for computers to conduct format conversion. Nor do 

the claims provide any guidance as to how this purported 

function is achieved. Thus, claim 16 does not claim a patent-eligible technological solution to a technological problem. See, e.g., Univ. of Fla., 916 F.3d at 1368–69.

Maritz also argues that claim 16 is patent eligible because it recites unconventional subject matter. To that 

end, Maritz relies on expert testimony providing:

Vendor-specific formats were designed to communicate and transact fundamentally in currency 

price of the goods or services available for purchase. They lacked the capability to communicate 

from a reward program participant any special arrangement that might exist between the vendor 

and the reward program in terms of the price the 

reward program would ultimately pay on the program account. Furthermore, vendor-specific formats lacked any indication of an association with 

3 Although we focus on this added limitation because 

the parties focused on this limitation in their briefing, we 

note that we have thoroughly considered the entirety of 

claim 16 in reaching our conclusion. 

Case: 20-1307 Document: 43 Page: 20 Filed: 02/08/2021
CXLOYALTY, INC. v. MARITZ HOLDINGS INC. 21

the loyalty program. Thus, providing vendor information to a participant in the vendor-specific format would confuse participants about whether

they were shopping from the vendor based on the 

points in their program account, as intended. Additionally, many vendor-specific formats were quite 

technical and therefore not suitable for unsophisticated participants and there were significant differences between vendor-specific formats. By 

using a GUI associated with the loyalty program, 

in communication with an API, to convert vendor 

information from a vendor-specific format to the 

format of the GUI, the inventions described in the 

’087 patent could, for the first time, remedy these 

concerns and provide an e-commerce platform that 

participants use to purchase goods and/or services 

directly from third-party vendor systems using 

points in their point accounts. The uniquely programmed combination of an API and GUI . . . was 

not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the 

field of reward programs.” 

J.A. 1762–63; see also Decision, at 88; Maritz’s Op. Br. 33, 

40–41; J.A. 1634–90 (Weiner Decl.), 1753–67 (Weiner Decl. 

in Support of Patent Owner’s Mot. to Amend).

Although this expert testimony invokes the words 

“well-understood, routine, or conventional,” the type of unconventionality described by Maritz’s expert does not spare 

the claims. To be sure, a patent claim may be eligible under § 101 if it, for example, “reflects something more than 

the application of an abstract idea using well-understood, 

routine, and conventional activities.” Cellspin, 927 F.3d 

at 1315–16 (internal quotation marks omitted). But the expert testimony relied upon by Maritz does not establish 

that. At most, the testimony describes the claimed subject 

matter as not conventional only in the sense that the subject matter as a whole was novel. Indeed, novel subject 

matter is necessarily not well-understood, routine, or 

Case: 20-1307 Document: 43 Page: 21 Filed: 02/08/2021
22 CXLOYALTY, INC. v. MARITZ HOLDINGS INC.

conventional. But, as explained previously, our cases are 

clear that a patent claim is not eligible under § 101 merely 

because it recites novel subject matter. See, e.g., SAP, 898 

F.3d at 1163.

Maritz also analogizes the claims here to those in CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358, 1374–75 

(Fed. Cir. 2020) on the basis that “both pass [step one] by 

reciting claim limitations that are more than merely automating a prior art process using a computer.” Maritz’s Op. 

Br. 47. But Maritz’s reliance on CardioNet is misplaced.

The claims in CardioNet related to a cardiac monitoring device that “detects beat-to-beat timing of cardiac activity, detects premature ventricular beats, and 

determines the relevance of the beat-to-beat timing to 

atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, taking into account the 

variability in the beat-to-beat timing caused by premature 

ventricular beats identified by the device’s ventricular beat 

detector.” 955 F.3d at 1368. The court rejected the argument that the claims were directed to automating basic diagnostic processes that doctors had long used, explaining 

that “[n]othing in the record in this case suggests that the 

claims merely computerize pre-existing techniques for diagnosing atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter.” Id. at 1370. 

In contrast, here the record demonstrates that the claims 

are directed to the application of longstanding commercial 

practices using well-understood, routine, and conventional 

activities. Accordingly, Maritz’s reliance on CardioNet is 

not compelling.

Maritz also attempts to liken its claims to those in DDR 

Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir.

2014), but Maritz’s reliance on DDR Holdings is likewise 

unpersuasive. The claims in DDR Holdings did not relate 

to a longstanding commercial practice but rather to a business challenge particular to the internet, and the claims 

did not merely employ conventional techniques to apply an 

abstract idea but rather involved the use of a computer 

Case: 20-1307 Document: 43 Page: 22 Filed: 02/08/2021
CXLOYALTY, INC. v. MARITZ HOLDINGS INC. 23

network operating outside its normal and expected manner. Id. at 1257–59. For the reasons discussed previously, 

the same cannot be said about the challenged claims here. 

2

Claim 22 is ineligible under § 101 for the same reasons 

as claim 1. Maritz attempts to differentiate claim 22 from 

claim 1 at both steps one and two on the basis that claim 22 

“provides the ability for a participant to use a single loyalty 

program GUI to make points-based purchases directly 

from multiple third-party vendor systems via multiple 

APIs.”4 Maritz’s Op. Br. 44. But this additional limitation

constitutes part of the abstract idea: loyalty programs had

long permitted participants to make points-based purchases from multiple third-party vendors. See, e.g., 

’087 patent col. 1 ll. 24–29. And, like claim 1, claim 22 implements the abstract idea using wholly conventional techniques specified at a high degree of generality. Further, 

like claim 16, although claim 22 might recite novel subject 

matter, that fact is insufficient to confer eligibility. See 

SAP, 898 F.3d at 1163. Therefore, we conclude that 

claim 22 does not recite patent-eligible subject matter. See, 

e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 218–25; Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73, 82; 

Cellspin, 927 F.3d at 1315–16.

CONCLUSION

We have considered Maritz’s remaining arguments but 

find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, and dismiss-in-part. 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART, AND 

DISMISSED-IN-PART

4 Although we focus on this added limitation because 

the parties focused on this limitation in their briefing, we 

note that we have thoroughly considered the entirety of 

claim 22 in reaching our conclusion.

Case: 20-1307 Document: 43 Page: 23 Filed: 02/08/2021
24 CXLOYALTY, INC. v. MARITZ HOLDINGS INC.

COSTS

Costs to cxLoyalty. 

Case: 20-1307 Document: 43 Page: 24 Filed: 02/08/2021