Court Opinion

ID: 9955739
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-29 14:00:51.096409+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:21.720898
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-2215   Document: 45     Page: 1   Filed: 03/29/2024

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

    BLUEBONNET INTERNET MEDIA SERVICES,
                     LLC,
              Plaintiff-Appellant

                            v.

                PANDORA MEDIA, LLC,
                   Defendant-Appellee
                 ______________________

                       2022-2215
                 ______________________

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 Northern District of California in No. 3:21-cv-08294-VC,
 Judge Vince Chhabria.
                 ______________________

                 Decided: March 29, 2024
                 ______________________

    ROBERT R. BRUNELLI, Sheridan Ross PC, Denver, CO,
 argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by BRIAN
 BOERMAN; BRIAN ANDREW CARPENTER, Cole Schotz P.C.,
 Dallas, TX; GEORGE THEODORE SCOTT, WALTER JAMES
 SCOTT, JR., Scott Law Group LLP, Evergreen, CO.

    BRYAN ALEXANDER KOHM, Fenwick & West LLP, San
 Francisco, CA, argued for defendant-appellee. Also
Case: 22-2215    Document: 45     Page: 2    Filed: 03/29/2024

 2              BLUEBONNET INTERNET MEDIA SERVICES, LLC v.
                                      PANDORA MEDIA, LLC

 represented by JESSICA L. BENZLER; JONATHAN THOMAS
 MCMICHAEL, Seattle, WA.
                 ______________________

      Before PROST, STOLL, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
 STARK, Circuit Judge.
     Bluebonnet Internet Media Services, LLC (“Bluebon-
 net”) appeals the judgment of the United States District
 Court for the Northern District of California (“Northern
 District”) that all asserted claims of its U.S. Patent Nos.
 9,405,753 (“’753 patent”), 9,547,650 (“’650 patent”), and
 9,779,095 (“’095 patent”) are directed to nonpatentable
 subject matter. Bluebonnet also asks us to reconsider our
 prior decision to issue a writ of mandamus and order this
 case to be transferred from the Western District of Texas
 (“Western District”). We find that the patents are directed
 to an abstract idea and do not contain an inventive concept,
 rendering the patents ineligible and the issue of forum
 transfer moot. Accordingly, we affirm.
                              I
     Bluebonnet filed suit in the Western District against
 Pandora Media, LLC (“Pandora”) alleging infringement of
 certain claims of the ’753, ’650, and ’095 patents. Repre-
 sentative claim 1 of the ’753 patent recites:
        A system comprising:
            a playback interface executing on an
        internet enabled multimedia computing
        platform including:
                a media player that plays me-
            dia resources delivered over the In-
            ternet from a remote server, and
                a streaming media clips rating
            system that receives a rating when
            a user enters a rating selection by
Case: 22-2215    Document: 45    Page: 3    Filed: 03/29/2024

 BLUEBONNET INTERNET MEDIA SERVICES, LLC v.               3
 PANDORA MEDIA, LLC

            using one or more of an icon or dis-
            play feature of the playback inter-
            face, and signals, via the Internet,
            the rating to a rating component;
            and
            a rating system including:
                a database management com-
            ponent that maintains an organiza-
            tional data structure that describes
            rating information for the media
            resources,
                the rating component receives,
            via the Internet, the rating from
            the streaming media clips rating
            system and modifies rating infor-
            mation in the organizational data
            structure at least based on the rat-
            ing; and
            a play-list generator adapted to auto-
        matically and dynamically generate at
        least one play-list based on rating infor-
        mation in the organizational data struc-
        ture, wherein the play-list comprises
        identifiers of one or more media resources
        selected based on the rating information,
        wherein the media resources are played
        back on the media player.
 ’753 patent at 38:41-65.
     Pandora’s motion to transfer the case from the Western
 District was originally denied, but we later granted Pan-
 dora’s mandamus petition and ordered the case to be trans-
 ferred to the Northern District. Thereafter, Pandora
 moved for judgment on the pleadings, which the judge in
 the Northern District granted. The court found that while
 the asserted “claims may capture the core of a good
Case: 22-2215     Document: 45       Page: 4   Filed: 03/29/2024

 4               BLUEBONNET INTERNET MEDIA SERVICES, LLC v.
                                       PANDORA MEDIA, LLC

 business idea,” “they are directed to an abstract idea and
 lack an inventive concept – and are therefore invalid” un-
 der 35 U.S.C. § 101. J.A. 27. Bluebonnet timely appealed. 1
                               II
      We evaluate subject matter eligibility using the two-
 step Alice test. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S.
 208 (2014). “First, we determine whether the claims at is-
 sue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, such as an
 abstract idea,” and, second, we “determine whether [the
 claim] contains an inventive concept sufficient to transform
 the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible applica-
 tion.” Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co., 935
 F.3d 1341, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks
 omitted). “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts
 to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea
 ‘on . . . a computer,’ that addition cannot impart patent el-
 igibility.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (internal citation omitted).
      “We review procedural aspects of the grant of judgment
 on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
 12(c) based on the law of the regional circuit,” which here
 is the Ninth Circuit. Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Ca-
 ble Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
 In the Ninth Circuit, “[d]ismissal for failure to state a claim
 is reviewed de novo. Factual allegations in the complaint
 are taken as true and all reasonable inferences are drawn
 in the plaintiff’s favor.” Barrett v. Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060,
 1061 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted).
                               III
     At Alice step one, the district court found that Bluebon-
 net’s claims were directed to the abstract idea of

     1   The district court had subject-matter jurisdiction
 under 28 U.S.C. § 1338. We have jurisdiction under 28
 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
Case: 22-2215     Document: 45     Page: 5    Filed: 03/29/2024

 BLUEBONNET INTERNET MEDIA SERVICES, LLC v.                  5
 PANDORA MEDIA, LLC

 “customizing a product according to a customer’s likes and
 dislikes,” applied “to the somewhat narrower context of
 computer-based media playlists.” J.A. 28. We agree with
 the district court. Our precedent establishes that these
 types of methods of organizing digital media – which is
 what creating playlists based on user feedback is – are ab-
 stract ideas. See, e.g., In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig.,
 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A]ttaching classifica-
 tion data, such as dates and times, to images for the pur-
 pose of storing those images in an organized manner is a
 well-established ‘basic concept’ sufficient to fall under Al-
 ice step 1.”). And it is well-settled that “merely adding com-
 puter functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the
 process,” as the claims asserted here do, “does not confer
 patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.” Intell.
 Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363,
 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
     At step two, we further agree with the district court
 that the claims lack any inventive concept. As the trial
 court stated, the claims “describe only the basic steps of
 streaming media, rating media, generating a playlist, and
 sharing a playlist.” J.A. 29. The claims do not, for in-
 stance, provide a new algorithm or method for creating
 playlists. Indeed, as the district court pointed out, the in-
 ventors “acknowledged that [they] did not invent stream-
 ing media, playlists or media players.” J.A. 29 (internal
 quotation marks omitted). Nor do the claims “require[] an-
 ything other than conventional computer and network
 components operating according to their ordinary func-
 tions.” Two-Way Media Ltd., 874 F.3d at 1339.
     Contrary to Bluebonnet’s contentions, the district court
 was not required to accept as true allegations in the com-
 plaint that are conclusory, state legal conclusions, or con-
 tradict the patent itself. Even accepting Bluebonnet’s
 assertion that four or five different components are re-
 quired to practice the asserted claims – a contention we do
 not endorse, as it amounts to an untimely request for claim
Case: 22-2215    Document: 45      Page: 6    Filed: 03/29/2024

 6              BLUEBONNET INTERNET MEDIA SERVICES, LLC v.
                                      PANDORA MEDIA, LLC

 construction 2 – the sheer number of conventional computer
 components employed, without more, does not constitute
 an inventive concept. See, e.g., Yu v. Apple Inc., 1 F.4th
 1040, 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (holding that “claimed configu-
 ration does not add sufficient substance to the underlying
 abstract idea” where “generic hardware limita-
 tions . . . merely serve as a conduit for the abstract idea”)
 (internal quotation marks omitted).
      We have considered Bluebonnet’s other arguments and
 find them unpersuasive. 3 For the reasons stated above, we
 affirm the district court’s decision.
                        AFFIRMED

     2    Claim construction proceedings were held in the
 Western District. After transfer to the Northern District,
 and during briefing on Pandora’s Rule 12(c) motion, Blue-
 bonnet argued that the Western District’s constructions
 were correct and that no further claim construction need
 be undertaken.
      3   Given our affirmance of the unpatentability deter-
 mination, Bluebonnet’s dissatisfaction with the transfer of
 venue is moot. We note, however, that any challenge to
 venue has to be raised first in the district court. Here,
 Bluebonnet did not move in the Northern District to trans-
 fer the case back to the Western District. Nor does it ask
 us to dismiss or remand this appeal to allow it to do so now.