NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MAXON, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

FUNAI CORPORATION, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2017-2139

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois in No. 1:16-cv-07685, Judge 

Gary Feinerman. 

______________________ 

Decided: April 9, 2018

______________________ 

 MATTHEW MICHAEL WAWRZYN, Wawrzyn & Jarvis 

LLC, Glenview, IL, argued for plaintiff-appellant.

 MARC ROBERT LABGOLD, Marc R. Labgold, P.C., 

Reston, VA, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by PATRICK J. HOEFFNER. 

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, HUGHES and STOLL, Circuit 

Judges.
2 MAXON, LLC v. FUNAI CORPORATION, INC. 

HUGHES, Circuit Judge. 

Maxon, LLC appeals the district court’s finding that 

U.S. Patent Nos. 8,989,160; 7,489,671; 7,486,649; and

7,171,194 claim ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 

§ 101. Because the district court did not err in granting 

Funai Corporation, Inc.’s motion to dismiss, we affirm.

I 

The district court found the four patents at issue 

teach “electronic means of increasing user control over 

subscription entertainment content.” J.A. 1. The parties 

agree that claim 8 of the ’160 patent, claim 6 of the ’671 

patent, claim 6 of the ’649 patent, and claim 8 of the ’194 

patent are representative of their respective patents. We 

reproduce only claim 8 of the ’160 patent.

An audio-video device capable of sharing services 

with a plurality of other devices within a personal 

network, the audio-video device comprising:

a computer-readable medium having storage for a 

first address corresponding to the audio-video device, a second address corresponding to the personal network, and a third address corresponding 

to a service provider network;

input/output logic configured to receive from a user a desired change to a service capable of being 

provisioned to the audio-video device from at least 

one service available generally to the personal 

network; 

a processor in communication with the computerreadable medium and the input/output logic, the 

processor programmed to prepare an inbound signaling word comprising at least the first address 

and payload data representing the desired change 

to the service capable of being provisioned to the 

audio-video device from the personal network; and
MAXON, LLC v. FUNAI CORPORATION, INC. 3

a transceiver providing the inbound signaling 

word to the service provider network where the 

service provider network comprises logic to process the inbound signaling word including modifying stored information in a subscriber database to 

effect the desired change to the service capable of 

being provisioned to the audio-video device from 

the personal network, the transceiver further receiving an outbound signaling word comprising 

the first address corresponding to the audio-video 

device and data indicating the desired change to 

the personal network, the outbound signaling 

word responsive to the desired change to the service capable of being provisioned to the audiovideo device from the personal network.

’160 patent at col. 14 ll. 31–64.

The physical components of claim 8 are a computerreadable medium, input/output logic, a processor, and a 

transceiver. The other representative claims include 

similar physical elements: claim 6 of the ’671 patent 

contains a computer-readable medium, management 

logic, and a processor; claim 6 of the ’649 patent contains 

a computer-readable medium, management logic, and a 

processor; and claim 8 of the ’194 patent contains a user 

interface and communications logic.

The district court found all four patents ineligible under § 101. Maxon appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

II

We apply the law of the regional circuit to a district 

court’s grant of a motion to dismiss. BASCOM Glob. 

Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 

1341, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Seventh Circuit reviews 

motions to dismiss de novo. Firestone Fin. Corp. v. Meyer, 

796 F.3d 822, 825 (7th Cir. 2015). 
4 MAXON, LLC v. FUNAI CORPORATION, INC. 

Patent eligibility under § 101 is a legal determination 

that we review de novo. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 

765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Under Alice, we 

consider: (1) whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea, and (2) whether the claims contain an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed 

abstract idea into a patent-eligible concept. Alice Corp. 

Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). 

The use of “wholly generic computer implementation” 

cannot “transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a 

patent-eligible invention.” Id. at 2358.

Maxon concedes that the patents are directed to the 

abstract idea of “decentralized delivery controlled by the 

owner of a plurality of devices.” Appellant’s Op. Br. 11. 

Accordingly, the only issue before the district court was

whether the claims “do significantly more than simply 

describe the abstract method.” Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC 

v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The 

court found that they do not. 

The district court correctly found that the claims recite only generic computing processes using functional 

language. Analyzing the physical components of the 

claims, the district court noted that the specifications do 

not limit the breadth of elements such as “computerreadable medium,” “logic,” “processor,” or “transceiver.” 

Instead, for example, “computer-readable medium” is 

defined as “any non-transitory medium that participates 

directly or indirectly in providing signals, instructions 

and/or data to one or more processors for execution.” ’160 

patent at col. 2 ll. 55–58. Put another way, the computerreadable medium “could be described as ‘something that 

stores data that a computer can read.’” J.A. 8. Therefore, 

the district court correctly found that the claims merely 

recite generic computer elements for their basic functions 

and thus do not transform the claimed abstract idea into 

eligible subject matter under Alice. See Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l 
MAXON, LLC v. FUNAI CORPORATION, INC. 5

Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding that 

there is no inventive concept in using a generic computer 

“to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional 

activities commonly used in industry”).

The district court also correctly found that the ordered 

combination of the claimed elements is not inventive

under Alice step two. Analyzing claim 8 of the ’160 patent, the court noted:

[T]he invention consists of some kind of memory 

capable of identifying the device and the networks 

to which it is connected, the ability to take instructions and use them in connection with the 

stored identification data, and the ability to send 

and receive signals based on the processor’s abilities. That describes only the desired result—

increased user control over services available to 

him or her—without describing any inventive way 

that result is reached. The only method of reaching the result the patent teaches is, in essence, 

use of generic computer components for their 

standard purposes to achieve the result. Nothing 

about the order of the elements, or the way they 

are combined, suggests inventiveness.

J.A. 11–12. We agree that the representative claim does 

not recite anything beyond the application of routine and 

conventional computer components. The same principles 

apply to each of the asserted patents in this case. We 

have considered Maxon’s other arguments and find them 

unpersuasive. Accordingly, we find that the patents only 

cover ineligible subject matter.

III

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district 

court’s grant of the motion to dismiss.

AFFIRMED