Court Opinion

ID: 9414622
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 14:00:49.510978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:53.895827
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-2251    Document: 95           Page: 1       Filed: 08/02/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                   ______________________

           REALTIME DATA LLC, DBA IXO,
                 Plaintiff-Appellant

                                  v.

   ARRAY NETWORKS INC., NIMBUS DATA, INC.,
                Defendants

    FORTINET, INC., REDUXIO SYSTEMS, INC.,
   QUEST SOFTWARE, INC., CTERA NETWORKS,
   LTD., ARYAKA NETWORKS, INC., OPEN TEXT,
  INC., MONGODB INC., EGNYTE, INC., PANZURA,
                      INC.,
               Defendants-Appellees

                   ______________________

                         2021-2251
                   ______________________

     Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 District of Delaware in No. 1:17-cv-00800-CFC, Chief
 Judge Colm F. Connolly.

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

           REALTIME DATA LLC, DBA IXO,
                 Plaintiff-Appellant

                                  v.
Case: 21-2251    Document: 95     Page: 2    Filed: 08/02/2023

 2                REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC.

          SPECTRA LOGIC CORPORATION,
                 Defendant-Appellee
               ______________________

                        2021-2291
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 District of Delaware in No. 1:17-cv-00925-CFC, Chief
 Judge Colm F. Connolly.
                 ______________________

                  Decided: August 2, 2023
                  ______________________

      BRIAN DAVID LEDAHL, Russ August & Kabat, Los Ange-
 les, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by
 MARC A. FENSTER, PAUL ANTHONY KROEGER, REZA MIRZAIE,
 SHANI M. WILLIAMS.

     JOHN NEUKOM, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, San Fran-
 cisco, CA, argued for all defendants-appellees. Defendant-
 appellee Fortinet, Inc. also represented by DOUGLAS R.
 NEMEC, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New
 York, NY; JAMES Y. PAK, Palo Alto, CA.

     GUY YONAY, Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz LLP,
 New York, NY, for defendants-appellees Reduxio Systems,
 Inc., CTERA Networks, Ltd.

    ALTON GEORGE BURKHALTER, Burkhalter Kessler
 Clement & George LLP, Irvine, CA, for defendant-appellee
 Panzura, Inc. Also represented by MAHSA MICHELLE
 ROHANI.

    THEODORE J. ANGELIS, K&L Gates LLP, Seattle, WA,
 for defendant-appellee Quest Software, Inc.     Also
Case: 21-2251    Document: 95      Page: 3    Filed: 08/02/2023

 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC.                   3

 represented    by   NICHOLAS    F.   LENNING,    ELIZABETH
 WEISKOPF.

    JOSHUA M. MASUR, Zuber Lawler LLP, Redwood City,
 CA, for defendant-appellee Aryaka Networks, Inc.

     TIMOTHY J. CARROLL, Venable LLP, Chicago, IL, for de-
 fendant-appellee Open Text, Inc. Also represented by
 LAURA A. WYTSMA, Los Angeles, CA.

     HILARY L. PRESTON, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Austin, TX,
 for defendant-appellee MongoDB Inc. Also represented by
 PARKER DOUGLAS HANCOCK, Houston, TX.

     RYAN T. BEARD, FisherBroyles LLP, Austin, TX, for de-
 fendant-appellee Egnyte, Inc.     Also represented by
 CHRISTOPHER ROBERT KINKADE, Princeton, NJ.

      ROBERT E. PURCELL, The Law Office of Robert E. Pur-
 cell, PLLC, Syracuse, NY, for defendant-appellee Spectra
 Logic Corporation.

     GABRIEL K. BELL, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washing-
 ton, DC, for amicus curiae Veritas Technologies LLC. Also
 represented by AMIT MAKKER, San Francisco, CA.
                  ______________________

   Before NEWMAN, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
    Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge REYNA.
    Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN.
 REYNA, Circuit Judge.
    This case returns to us for the second time. Appellant
 Realtime sued several companies, including some of the
 Appellees, in the District of Delaware for infringing various
 combinations of five patents related to methods and
Case: 21-2251     Document: 95      Page: 4    Filed: 08/02/2023

 4                 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC.

 systems for data compression. Some of the Appellees
 moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
 12(b)(6) for, among other things, failure to state a claim,
 arguing that the claims of the patents were patent ineligi-
 ble under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court held a hearing
 and orally announced that all of the claims from the five
 patents were invalid under § 101. On appeal, this court
 vacated and remanded for the district court to provide a
 more detailed § 101 analysis. Realtime Data LLC v. Re-
 duxio Systems, Inc., 831 F. App’x 492 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
 (“Realtime I”).
      On remand, the district court issued a written opinion
 that found that the claims from all eight asserted patents
 (by then, Realtime had asserted three more patents and
 had added more parties) were invalid under § 101 because
 the claims were directed to an abstract idea. Realtime Data
 LLC v. Array Networks Inc., 537 F. Supp. 3d 591 (D. Del.
 2021) (“Realtime II”). The court dismissed Realtime’s com-
 plaints but allowed Realtime to amend them, which it did—
 adding material and dropping a patent. On renewed mo-
 tions to dismiss, the district court reaffirmed its prior anal-
 ysis and dismissed the amended complaints—this time,
 without leave to amend. Realtime Data LLC v. Array Net-
 works Inc., 556 F. Supp. 3d 424 (D. Del. 2021) (“Realtime
 III”).
     Realtime appeals. For the reasons below, we affirm.
                         BACKGROUND
                   A. The Asserted Patents
     The seven patents at issue here are U.S. Patent Nos.
 9,054,728 (’728 patent), 8,933,825 (’825 patent), 8,717,203
 (’203 patent), 9,116,908 (’908 patent), 7,415,530 (’530 pa-
 tent), 10,019,458 (’458 patent), and 9,667,751 (’751 patent).
 All generally relate to methods and systems for digital data
 compression. Appellant’s Br. 15. The seven patents can be
 broken into three families. Id.
Case: 21-2251    Document: 95      Page: 5    Filed: 08/02/2023

 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC.                   5

      The family 1 patents. The ’728, ’825, and ’203 patents
 are in the same family, share a specification, and are titled
 “Data Compression Systems and Methods.” 1 The patents
 address issues with lossless data compression techniques,
 including the “fundamental problem” of their “content sen-
 sitive behavior” or “data dependency,” which “implies that
 the compression ratio achieved is highly contingent upon
 the content of the data being compressed.” ’728 patent at
 2:29–35. Another issue with lossless data compression
 techniques is that “there are significant variations in the
 compression ratio obtained when using a single lossless
 data compression technique for data streams having differ-
 ent data content and data size.” Id. at 2:41–45. According
 to the patents, although “conventional content dependent
 techniques,” which typically rely on file type descriptors
 appended to file names, for example, “.doc” or “.txt,” may
 be used to address these problems, those content depend-
 ent techniques had “[f]undamental limitations.” Id. at
 2:65–3:19; see also Appellant’s Br. 17.
     To avoid problems associated with data dependency
 and to improve efficacy, the patents describe “a system for
 data compression that looks beyond the file type descriptor,
 to the underlying data, to complete the desired compres-
 sion.” Realtime I, 831 F. App’x at 493–94 (citing ’728 patent
 at 3:59–5:11). The system uses a combination of content-
 independent and content-dependent data compression and
 decompression. See ’728 patent at Abstract, 1:34–37, 3:59–
 62, 6:24–27.
     The ’728 patent includes 25 claims. 2 Claim 25 recites:

     1    Because these patents share a specification, when
 appropriate, we will refer to the ’728 patent specification
 for all three.
     2    The district court implicitly treated a single claim
 from each asserted patent as representative. See, e.g.,
Case: 21-2251     Document: 95      Page: 6    Filed: 08/02/2023

 6                 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC.

     25. A computer implemented method comprising:
         analyzing, using a processor, data within a
         data block to identify one or more
         parameters or attributes of the data within
         the data block;
         determining, using the processor, whether
         to output the data block in a received form
         or in a compressed form; and
         outputting, using the processor, the data
         block in the received form or the
         compressed     form    based    on    the
         determination,
         wherein the outputting the data block in
         the    compressed     form    comprises
         determining whether to compress the data
         block with content dependent data
         compression based on the one or more

 Realtime II, 537 F. Supp. 3d at 599–602 (reproducing a sin-
 gle claim from each patent). It also at times did so ex-
 pressly. See id. at 606 (“I adopt claim 18 as representative
 of the [’]825 patent for the purposes of § 101 subject-matter
 eligibility.”); id. at 613–14 (“agree[ing]” that claim 9 of the
 ’458 patent and claim 1 of the ’751 patent were representa-
 tive). Appellees assert that the claims that the district
 court reproduced are representative. Realtime does not
 meaningfully argue that, for eligibility purposes, there is
 any distinctive significance between the claims that the
 district court and the Appellees treat as representative and
 the other claims in the respective patents. We thus treat
 those claims as representative. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
 881 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (claims may be treated
 as “representative” if a patentee makes no “meaningful ar-
 gument for the distinctive significance of any claim limita-
 tions not found in the representative claim”).
Case: 21-2251       Document: 95   Page: 7    Filed: 08/02/2023

 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC.                    7

         parameters or attributes of the data within
         the data block or to compress the data block
         with a single data compression encoder;
         and
         wherein the analyzing of the data within
         the data block to identify the one or more
         parameters or attributes of the data
         excludes analyzing based only on a
         descriptor that is indicative of the one or
         more parameters or attributes of the data
         within the data block.
 Id. at claim 25.
     The ’825 patent includes 30 claims. Claim 18 recites:
     18. A method comprising:
         associating at least one encoder to each one
         of a plurality of parameters or attributes of
         data;
         analyzing data within a data block to
         determine whether a parameter or
         attribute of the data within the data block
         is identified for the data block;
         wherein the analyzing of the data within
         the data block to identify a parameter or
         attribute of the data excludes analyzing
         based only on a descriptor that is indicative
         of the parameter or attribute of the data
         within the data block;
         identifying a first parameter or attribute of
         the data of the data block;
         compressing, if the first parameter or
         attribute of the data is the same as one of
         the plurality of parameter or attributes of
         the data, the data block with the at least
Case: 21-2251    Document: 95     Page: 8   Filed: 08/02/2023

 8                REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC.

        one encoder associated with the one of the
        plurality of parameters or attributes of the
        data that is the same as the first parameter
        or attribute of the data to provide a
        compressed data block; and
        compressing, if the first parameter or
        attribute of the data is not the same as one
        of the plurality of parameters or attributes
        of the data, the data block with a default
        encoder to provide the compressed data
        block.
 ’825 patent at claim 18.
     The ’203 patent includes 30 claims. Claim 14 recites:
     14. A system for decompressing, one or more
     compressed data blocks included in one or more
     data packets using a data decompression engine,
     the one or more data packets being transmitted in
     sequence from a source that is internal or external
     to the data decompression engine, wherein a data
     packet from among the one or more data packets
     comprises a header containing control information
     followed by one or more compressed data blocks of
     the data packet the system comprising:
        a data decompression processor configured
        to analyze the data packet to identify one
        or more recognizable data tokens
        associated with the data packet, the one or
        more recognizable data identifying a
        selected encoder used to compress one or
        more data blocks to provide the one or more
        compressed data blocks, the encoder being
        selected based on content of the one or more
        data blocks on which a compression
        algorithm was applied;
Case: 21-2251    Document: 95      Page: 9    Filed: 08/02/2023

 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC.                   9

         one or more decompression decoders
         configured to decompress a compressed
         data block from among the one or more
         compressed data blocks associated with the
         data packet based on the one or more
         recognizable data tokens; wherein:
         the one or more decompression decoders
         are further configured to decompress the
         compressed data block utilizing content
         dependent data decompression to provide a
         first decompressed data block when the one
         or more recognizable data tokens indicate
         that the data block was encoded utilizing
         content dependent data compression; and
         the one or more decompression decoders
         are further configured to decompress the
         compressed data block utilizing content
         independent data decompression to provide
         a second decompressed data block when
         the one or more recognizable data tokens
         indicate that the data block was encoded
         utilizing   content   independent    data
         compression; and
         an output interface, coupled to the data
         decompression engine, configured to output
         a decompressed data packet including the
         first or the second decompressed data
         block.
 ’203 patent at claim 14.
     The family 2 patents. The ’908, ’530, and ’458 patents
 are in the same family, share a specification, and are titled
 “System and Methods for Accelerated Data Storage and
Case: 21-2251    Document: 95      Page: 10     Filed: 08/02/2023

 10                REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC.

 Retrieval.” 3 These patents are directed to “[s]ystems and
 methods for providing accelerated data storage and re-
 trieval utilizing lossless data compression and decompres-
 sion.” ’908 patent at Abstract; see also id. at 1:15–18, 2:58–
 60, 4:42–44. The patents describe certain drawbacks found
 in prior art systems, including that “high performance disk
 interface standards . . . offer only the promise of higher
 data transfer rates through intermediate data buffering in
 random access memory” and do not address the “funda-
 mental problem” with physical media limitations, id. at
 2:34–42; and that “[f]aster disk access data rates are only
 achieved by the high[-]cost solution of simultaneously ac-
 cessing multiple disk drives with a technique known . . . as
 data striping,” id. at 2:42–45.
      The patents purport to overcome these issues by using
 a “data storage accelerator,” which “operates to increase
 the effective data storage rate of” a “data storage device” or
 “memory device.” Id. at 5:35–47; see also id. at 3:25–33.
 The specification explains that “the data storage accelera-
 tor . . . employs . . . any conventional data compression
 method suitable for compressing data at a rate necessary
 for obtaining accelerated data storage.” Id. at 16:49–54; see
 also id. at 11:31–36. “[T]he data compression ratio of the
 data storage accelerator . . . may be adjusted by applying a
 different type of encoding process such as employing a sin-
 gle encoder, multiple parallel or sequential encoders, or
 any combination thereof.” Id. at 10:6–10. The specification
 further explains that “[d]ata compression is performed by
 an encoder module . . . which may comprise a set of encod-
 ers . . . [that] may include any number . . . of those lossless
 encoding techniques currently well known within the art.”
 Id. at 11:66–12:5. In a preferred embodiment, “the

      3   Because these patents share a specification, when
 appropriate, we will refer to the ’908 patent specification
 for all three.
Case: 21-2251      Document: 95   Page: 11   Filed: 08/02/2023

 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC.                   11

 encoding techniques are based upon their ability to effec-
 tively encode different types of input data.” Id. at 12:5–7.
 This, the specification explains, is meant “to eliminate the
 complexity and additional processing overhead associated
 with multiplexing concurrent encoding techniques.” Id. at
 12:31–33. A “compression type descriptor,” moreover, can
 be appended to the encoded data block output “so as to in-
 dicate the type of compression format of the encoded data
 block.” Id. at 12:40–67.
     The ’908 patent includes 30 claims. Claim 1 recites:
     1. A system comprising:
         a memory device; and
         a data accelerator configured to compress:
         (i) a first data block with a first
         compression technique to provide a first
         compressed data block; and (ii) a second
         data block with a second compression
         technique, different from the first
         compression technique, to provide a second
         compressed data block;
         wherein the compressed first and second
         data blocks are stored on the memory
         device, and the compression and storage
         occurs faster than the first and second data
         blocks are able to be stored on the memory
         device in uncompressed form.
 Id. at claim 1.
     The ’530 patent includes 26 claims. Claim 1 recites:
     1. A system comprising:
         a memory device; and
         a data accelerator, wherein said data
         accelerator is coupled to said memory
         device, a data stream is received by said
Case: 21-2251    Document: 95     Page: 12    Filed: 08/02/2023

 12                REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC.

         data accelerator in received form, said data
         stream includes a first data block and a
         second data block, said data stream is
         compressed by said data accelerator to
         provide a compressed data stream by
         compressing said first data block with a
         first compression technique and said
         second data block with a second
         compression technique, said first and
         second     compression techniques are
         different, said compressed data stream is
         stored on said memory device, said
         compression and storage occurs faster than
         said data stream is able to be stored on said
         memory device in said received form, a first
         data descriptor is stored on said memory
         device indicative of said first compression
         technique, and said first descriptor is
         utilized to decompress the portion of said
         compressed data stream associated with
         said first data block.
 ’530 patent at claim 1.
      The ’458 patent includes 22 claims. Claim 9 recites:
      9.  A method for accelerating data storage
      comprising:
         analyzing a first data block to determine a
         parameter of the first data block;
         applying a first encoder associated with the
         determined parameter of the first data
         block to create a first encoded, data block
         wherein the first encoder utilizes a lossless
         dictionary compression technique;
         analyzing a second data block to determine
         a parameter of the second data block;
Case: 21-2251    Document: 95     Page: 13    Filed: 08/02/2023

 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC.                  13

         applying a second encoder associated with
         the determined parameter of the second
         data block to create a second encoded data
         block, wherein the second encoder utilizes
         a lossless compression technique different
         than the lossless dictionary compression
         technique; and
         storing the first and second encoded data
         blocks on a memory device, wherein
         encoding and storage of the first encoded
         data block occur faster than the first data
         block is able to be stored on the memory
         device in unencoded form.
 ’458 patent at claim 9.
     The family 3 patent. The ’751 patent is titled “Data
 Feed Acceleration” and relates to “systems and method[s]
 for providing accelerated transmission of data . . . over a
 communication channel using data compression and de-
 compression to . . . effectively increase the bandwidth of
 the communication channel and/or reduce the latency of
 data transmission.” ’751 patent at 1:25–36. The specifica-
 tion explains that “accelerated” transmission is “a process
 of receiving a data stream for transmission over a commu-
 nication channel, compressing the broadcast data in real-
 time . . . at a compression rate that increases the effective
 bandwidth of the communication channel, and transmit-
 ting the compressed broadcast data over the communica-
 tion channel.” Id. at 6:28–36. The ’751 patent describes
 drawbacks with conventional data transmission systems,
 including that “current methods of encryption and com-
 pression take as much or substantially more time than the
 actual time to transmit the uncompressed, unencrypted
 data.” Id. at 3:31–33. A “problem within the current art,”
 the ’751 patent explains, “is the latency induced by the act
 of encryption, compression, decryption, and decompres-
 sion.” Id. at 3:34–36.
Case: 21-2251    Document: 95     Page: 14    Filed: 08/02/2023

 14                REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC.

     The ’751 patent asserts that it solves these problems
 with a “data compression ratio [that] is substantial and re-
 peatable on each data packet” and that has “no packet-to-
 packet data dependency.” Id. at 7:55–66. The patent ex-
 plains that compression can be “achieved” using one or
 more “state machines,” which “are constructed based on a-
 priori knowledge of the structure and content of one or
 more given broadcast and data feeds” and which “com-
 prise[] a set of compression tables that comprise infor-
 mation for encoding the next character (text, integer, etc.)
 or sequence of characters in the broadcast data feed, as well
 as pointers which point to the next state (encoding table)
 based on the character or character sequence.” Id. at 9:6–
 16. The patent further explains that “[g]eneral purpose
 computers, servers, workstations, personal digital assis-
 tants, special purpose microprocessors, dedicated hard-
 ware, or and [sic] combination thereof may be employed to
 implement the present invention.” Id. at 8:23–26.
      The ’751 patent includes 48 claims. Claim 1 recites:
      1. A method for compressing data comprising:
         analyzing content of a data block to identify
         a parameter, attribute, or value of the data
         block that excludes analyzing based solely
         on reading a descriptor;
         selecting an encoder associated with the
         identified parameter, attribute, or value;
         compressing data in the data block with the
         selected encoder to produce a compressed
         data block, wherein the compressing
         includes utilizing a state machine; and
         storing the compressed data block;
         wherein the time of the compressing the
         data block and the storing the compressed
Case: 21-2251      Document: 95   Page: 15    Filed: 08/02/2023

 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC.                  15

         data block is less than the time of storing
         the data block in uncompressed form.
 Id. at claim 1.
                     B. Procedural History
     Realtime filed suit alleging infringement of various
 combinations of the claims of the ’728, ’203, ’908, ’530, and
 ’751 patents against Appellees Fortinet and Reduxio in No-
 vember 2017, against Appellee Panzura in August 2018,
 and against Appellee Aryaka in December 2018. Realtime
 I, 831 F. App’x at 494. Fortinet, Reduxio, Panzura, and
 Aryaka moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim in
 2019. Id. at 494–95. They argued, among other things,
 that the claims from those five patents were patent ineligi-
 ble under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Id. at 495.
     In 2019, the district court issued an oral ruling from
 the bench dismissing those five patents for lack of subject
 matter eligibility under § 101. Id. On appeal, this court
 vacated and remanded, finding that the district court had
 provided too cursory a ruling to allow for meaningful ap-
 pellate review. Id. at 496–98. For example, we explained
 that the district court failed to consider the claims as a
 whole; to “seriously consider[]” claims beyond claim 25 of
 the ’751 patent; or to carefully consider the “directed to”
 question. Id.
     Following remand, the district court issued a May 4,
 2021 written opinion, in which it found that the seven pa-
 tents at issue here (and another patent that Realtime later
 dropped) invalid for claiming patent-ineligible subject mat-
 ter. Realtime II, 537 F. Supp. 3d at 599. 4 In doing so, the

     4   By this time, Realtime had sued additional parties
 and added additional patents, and some of the new parties
 had also filed motions to dismiss. Realtime II, 537 F. Supp.
 3d at 599.
Case: 21-2251    Document: 95      Page: 16    Filed: 08/02/2023

 16                REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC.

 district court first rejected Realtime’s argument that the
 court could not rule on a motion to dismiss because there
 were factual assertions that prevented disposal at the
 pleading stage. Id. at 604–05. The court found, for in-
 stance, that the “patents themselves explain that the tech-
 nologies and methods used in the claimed analyses were
 well-known and routine.” Id. at 605. The court also found
 that the 42 paragraphs in one of Realtime’s complaints,
 which Realtime argued contained relevant factual asser-
 tions, merely recited legal conclusions, quotations from the
 patents, and conclusory allegations. Id. None, it found,
 identify an inventive feature that is distinct from one of the
 claimed abstract ideas. Id.
     The district court next analyzed the specific patents.
 Id. at 605–616. The court considered whether it was ap-
 propriate to use representative claims (concluding that it
 was) and applied the two-step ineligibility analysis set
 forth in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S.
 208 (2014) for each patent. Id. It then summarized its
 analysis and addressed Realtime’s arguments, which the
 court found were applicable to every patent. Id. at 616–21.
      As for Alice step one, the court found that every claim
 from the asserted patents is “directed to the concept of ma-
 nipulating information using compression.” Id. at 616.
 And “[b]ecause data compression is, without more, simply
 a form of data analysis, the claims are directed to abstract
 ideas.” Id. The court found that the claims are not “highly
 specific” and do not provide a “technical solution”: they fail
 to teach “how to engineer an improved system,” how to “an-
 alyze data,” or how to achieve the claimed “efficiency bene-
 fits.” Id. at 616–17. The court found that these factors
 distinguished the claims from those at issue in the cases
 Realtime relied on—which were “necessarily rooted in com-
 puter technology.” Id. at 618 n.4.
     As for Alice step two, the court found that the claims
 provided no additional features that would transform the
Case: 21-2251    Document: 95     Page: 17    Filed: 08/02/2023

 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC.                  17

 claims into non-abstract subject matter: “they simply apply
 an abstract idea on generic computers with generic tech-
 niques.” Id. at 616. The court thus concluded that “all
 claims of the asserted patent are invalid under § 101 for
 lack of subject matter eligibility.” Id. at 621. The district
 court gave Realtime the opportunity to file amended com-
 plaints. Id. After Realtime did so, the defendants renewed
 their motions to dismiss. See, e.g., J.A. 3411.
      On August 23, 2021, the district court again dismissed,
 finding once again that the patents were invalid under
 § 101. Realtime III, 556 F. Supp. 3d at 437. The court first
 examined whether there were any material differences be-
 tween Realtime’s prior complaints and its amended com-
 plaints. Id. at 433. It found that nothing added changed
 its prior § 101 analysis. Id. It then incorporated its legal
 analysis from the Realtime II decision into its decision, re-
 affirmed its determination that the claims are all invalid
 under § 101, and granted dismissal. Id. at 435–36. At this
 point, the district court did not offer Realtime leave to
 amend.
    Realtime appeals.      We have jurisdiction under 28
 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
                         DISCUSSION
     We review the grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dis-
 miss under the law of the applicable regional circuit—here,
 the Third Circuit. Endo Pharms. Inc. v. Teva Pharms.
 USA, Inc., 919 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The Third
 Circuit reviews de novo a district court’s grant of a motion
 to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
 Id. (citing Ballentine v. United States, 486 F.3d 806, 808
 (3d Cir. 2007)). To survive a motion to dismiss for failure
 to state a claim, a complaint must allege “enough facts to
 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell
 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Case: 21-2251     Document: 95      Page: 18    Filed: 08/02/2023

 18                 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC.

     Section 101 of the Patent Act states: “Whoever invents
 or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manu-
 facture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful
 improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject
 to the conditions and requirements of this title.” 35 U.S.C.
 § 101. But § 101 “contains an important implicit exception:
 Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are
 not patentable.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 216 (citations omitted).
 The Supreme Court has articulated a two-step test for ex-
 amining patent eligibility when a patent claim allegedly in-
 volves such patent ineligible subject matter. Id. at 217–18.
 Under the “Alice” test, a claim falls outside § 101 if (1) it is
 directed to a patent-ineligible concept like an abstract idea,
 and (2) it lacks elements sufficient to transform the claim
 into a patent-eligible application. SAP Am., Inc. v. In-
 vestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1166–67 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
     We review § 101 patent eligibility under Federal Cir-
 cuit law. Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit
 Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Eligibility is
 ultimately a question of law that may be based on underly-
 ing factual findings. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360,
 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018). And it may be resolved on a Rule
 12(b)(6) motion “where the undisputed facts, considered
 under the standards required by that Rule, require a hold-
 ing of ineligibility under the substantive standards of law.”
 SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1166.
     Here, the district court found that the claims of all
 seven patents at issue are directed to abstract ideas and
 that they do not recite elements that transform the subject
 matter into an eligible application of the abstract ideas.
 We agree.
                       A. Alice Step One
     At Alice step one, we consider whether the claims are
 directed to an abstract idea. In doing so, we review the
 asserted claims, considered in light of the specification. Yu
Case: 21-2251    Document: 95      Page: 19    Filed: 08/02/2023

 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC.                   19

 v. Apple, 1 F.4th 1040, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (citing TecSec,
 Inc. v. Adobe Inc., 978 F.3d 1278, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2020)).
     The district court found that the claims from the as-
 serted patents are directed to the abstract idea “of manip-
 ulating information using compression.” Realtime II, 537
 F. Supp. 3d at 616. Specifically, it found that the patents
 are directed to the following abstract ideas:
    •   the ’728 and ’825 patents—“compressing data based
        on the content of that data”;
    •   the ’203 patent—“compressing or decompressing
        data based on the characteristics of that data where
        a token is used to signify the compression method
        used”;
    •   the ’908 and ’530 patents—“the combination of the
        abstract idea of compressing two different data
        blocks with different methods and the logical condi-
        tion that compression and storage together are
        faster than storage of the uncompressed data alone”;
    •   the ’458 patent—“compressing data using two dis-
        tinct lossless compression algorithms such that the
        time to compress and store the first data block is less
        than the time to store the uncompressed data block”;
        and
    •   the ’751 patent—“compressing data with a state ma-
        chine under conditions where compressing and stor-
        ing the data is faster than storing the uncompressed
        data and where the compression method applied to
        the data is based on the content of the data.”
 Realtime III, 556 F. Supp. 3d at 430.
     Realtime argues that the claims of the asserted patents
 are directed not to abstract ideas but “to specific improve-
 ments to digital data compression, and do not simply recite
 the use of an abstract mathematical formula, or a funda-
 mental economic or business practice, on any general-
Case: 21-2251    Document: 95      Page: 20     Filed: 08/02/2023

 20                REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC.

 purpose computer.” Appellant’s Reply Br. 13 (citing En-
 fish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1338 (Fed. Cir.
 2016)). Realtime contends that this court has “on multiple
 occasions highlighted ‘an improved, particularized method
 of digital data compression’ as an example of a non-ab-
 stract, ‘technologically complex’ invention.” Appellant’s Br.
 48 (quoting DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d
 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
     The district court found these arguments unpersua-
 sive. “The asserted patents,” it explained, “do not in fact
 offer a ‘technologically complex . . . improved, particular-
 ized method’ for compression but instead recite abstract
 ideas with only the most general directions to apply those
 ideas.” Realtime II, 537 F. Supp. 3d at 621–22 (modifica-
 tions in original). Indeed, the district court observed, the
 claims do not disclose the “how”—“how to engineer an im-
 proved system,” how to “analyze data,” or how to achieve
 the claimed “efficiency benefits.” Id. at 616–17; see also
 Realtime III, 556 F. Supp. 3d at 435 n.6 (“[W]hile the pa-
 tents do disclose potential challenges (e.g., the problem of
 selecting the best compression method for given data), they
 do not teach how to address those challenges.”).
     We agree. As we have “repeatedly” held, to avoid inel-
 igibility, “a claim must have the specificity required to
 transform the claim from one claiming only a result to one
 claiming a way of achieving it.” Free Stream Media Corp.
 v. Alphonso Inc., 996 F.3d 1355, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2021)
 (cleaned up) (citing SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1167–68). We
 have determined that “the claim itself . . . must go beyond
 stating a functional result.” Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc. v.
 Neapco Holdings LLC, 967 F.3d 1285, 1302 (Fed. Cir.
 2020). The claim must “identify ‘how’ th[e] functional re-
 sult is achieved by limiting the claim scope to structures
 specified at some level of concreteness, in the case of a prod-
 uct claim, or to concrete action, in the case of a method
 claim.” Id.; see also Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]here is a critical
Case: 21-2251    Document: 95      Page: 21    Filed: 08/02/2023

 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC.                   21

 difference between patenting a particular concrete solution
 to a problem and attempting to patent the abstract idea of
 a solution to the problem in general.” (citation omitted)).
      The claims at issue here fail to do this. As the district
 court explained, none of the claims at issue specifies any
 particular technique to carry out the compression of data—
 the particular rules for producing a smaller set of data out
 of a larger starting set. Rather, they all take the availabil-
 ity of compression techniques as a given and address the
 threshold matter of choosing to use one or more such avail-
 able techniques. And even as to making such a selection,
 the claims are directed to only abstract ideas, calling for
 unparticularized analysis of data and achievement of gen-
 eral goals.
      We begin our review with the family 1 patents. The
 representative claim of the ’728 patent recites a method
 that requires “analyzing” “data within a data block” using
 a “processor” to “identify” certain unspecified “parameters”
 or “attributes” of the data; “determining” whether to “out-
 put” the data block in either a “received” or “compressed”
 form; and “outputting” the data block in the determined
 form; wherein outputting in compressed form comprises
 determining whether to compress with “content dependent
 data compression” (based on the parameters or attributes)
 or to compress with a “single data compression encoder”;
 and wherein analyzing the data “excludes analyzing based
 only on a descriptor that is indicative” of the parameters or
 attributes. ’728 patent at claim 25. But neither the claim
 nor the specification ever explains how that data is to be
 analyzed or compressed. See, e.g., id. at 7:11–22 (“The en-
 coder set E1, E2, E3 . . . En may include any num-
 ber . . . of . . . lossless encoding techniques currently well
 known within the art . . . to provide a broad coverage of ex-
 isting and future data types”). The claim, for example, does
 not recite whether it analyzes data to determine the data’s
 length, complexity, type, or structure. The sole guidance it
 provides is that the analysis cannot be “based only on a
Case: 21-2251    Document: 95      Page: 22     Filed: 08/02/2023

 22                REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC.

 descriptor.” But minimal narrowing does not make the
 claim less abstract. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899
 F.3d 1281, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also SAP Am., 898
 F.3d at 1169 (“further narrowing of what are still mathe-
 matical operations” is still abstract).
      The representative claim of the ’825 patent is similar.
 It recites a method that requires “associating” at least one
 “encoder” with unspecified “parameters” or “attributes” of
 the data; “analyzing” the data within a “data block” to de-
 termine whether the unspecified parameters or attributes
 are identified; “identifying” a “parameter”; and “compress-
 ing” the data. ’825 patent at claim 18. Like claim 25 of the
 ’728 patent, this claim also fails to recite how the data is to
 be analyzed or compressed.
     The representative claim of the ’203 patent fares no
 better. It recites a decompression system that requires a
 “data decompression processor” to “analyze” a “data
 packet” to “identify” “data tokens” associated with the data
 packet and which “identify[]” an “encoder used” for com-
 pression; “decompression decoders” to “decompress” a
 “compressed data block” based on the tokens associated
 with the compression method; and an “output interface” to
 “output” the decompressed data. ’203 patent at claim 14.
 Neither the claim nor the specification explains how the
 decompression is actually achieved. See id. at 14:66–15:3
 (“The decoders D1 . . . Dn may include those lossless encod-
 ing techniques currently well known within the art.”).
      Turning to the family 2 patents, the representative
 claim of the ’908 patent recites a system requiring a
 “memory device” and a “data accelerator” to “compress” a
 “first data block with a first compression technique” and a
 “second data block with a second compression technique,”
 wherein the compressed data blocks are stored on the
 memory device and the “compression and storage occurs
 faster” than storage of the uncompressed data alone. ’908
 patent at claim 1. The claim does not recite specific
Case: 21-2251    Document: 95     Page: 23    Filed: 08/02/2023

 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC.                  23

 compression techniques or explain how the data accelera-
 tor selects those techniques. The specification simply notes
 that “any” of many “conventional,” “well known,” or “widely
 used” compression techniques can be used. Id. at 1:50–53,
 4:48–54, 16:49–53, 11:31–45, 11:66–12:5, 13:45–57. Nei-
 ther the claim nor the specification, moreover, explains
 how the storage of the compressed data occurs “faster.” Id.
 at 4:64–5:1 (stating that the “data storage accelerator” is
 “configured to simultaneously or sequentially losslessly
 compress data at a rate equivalent to or faster than the
 transmission rate of an input data stream”).
      The representative claim of the ’530 patent is similar
 to claim 1 of the ’908 patent but adds storing a compression
 technique “descriptor” and “utiliz[ing]” that descriptor to
 decompress the data. ’530 patent at claim 1. These recita-
 tions do not explain how the storage of the compressed data
 occurs “faster,” do not say how the descriptor is imple-
 mented, and are at most simply more abstract data manip-
 ulation. See Hawk Tech. Sys., LLC v. Castle Retail, LLC,
 60 F.4th 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“[C]onverting infor-
 mation from one format to another—including changing
 the format of video data or compressing it—is an abstract
 idea.”). Requiring the compression to be done using an
 identifier or data descriptor does not make the claims less
 abstract. See PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 8
 F.4th 1310, 1315–18 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (finding that claims
 directed to the use of “an algorithm-generated content-
 based identifier to perform the claimed data-management
 functions” were abstract); Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Syman-
 tec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that
 claims for identifying digital data based on “file content
 identifiers” were abstract).
     The representative claim of the ’458 patent is similar
 to those of the ’908 and ’530 patents. It recites a method
 that requires “analyzing” a first and a second data block to
 determine a “parameter” of those data blocks; “applying”
 “encoder[s]” associated with the determined parameters to
Case: 21-2251    Document: 95     Page: 24    Filed: 08/02/2023

 24                REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC.

 create a first and second encoded data block wherein the
 encoders “utilize[]” a “lossless dictionary compression tech-
 nique”; and “storing” the encoded data blocks on a memory
 device, “wherein encoding and storage of the first encoded
 data block occur faster than the first data block is able to
 be stored on the memory device in unencoded form.” ’458
 patent at claim 9. But requiring the analysis of data
 blocks—without explaining how the data is to be ana-
 lyzed—and the use of lossless compression techniques does
 not make the claim any less abstract. See Hawk, 60 F.4th
 at 1357; RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 855 F.3d
 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[P]rocess that start[s] with
 data, add[s] an algorithm, and end[s] with a new form of
 data [is] directed to an abstract idea.”); PersonalWeb
 Techs., 8 F.4th at 1317 (“Stringing together the claimed
 steps by ‘[a]dding one abstract idea . . . to an-
 other,’ . . . amounts merely to the abstract idea of using a
 content-based identifier to perform an abstract data-man-
 agement function.” (citations omitted)). Neither the claim
 nor the specification explains how the storage of the com-
 pressed data occurs “faster.” ’458 patent at 4:67–5:4.
     As for the family 3 patent, the representative claim of
 the ’751 patent recites a method that requires “analyzing
 content of a data block to identify a parameter, attribute,
 or value” of the data block “that excludes analyzing based
 solely on reading a descriptor”; “selecting an encoder”
 based on that parameter; “compressing” the data at a cer-
 tain rate using a “state machine”; “storing” the data;
 “wherein the time of the compressing the data block and
 the storing the compressed data block is less than the time
 of storing the data block in uncompressed form.” ’751 pa-
 tent at claim 1. This claim too states the result to be
 achieved: compressing the data block and storing the com-
 pressed data block in “less than the time of storing the data
 block in the uncompressed form.” Id. Like the claims of
 the family 2 patents, claim 1 of the ’751 patent does not
 explain how to accomplish the result. Nor does the
Case: 21-2251    Document: 95     Page: 25    Filed: 08/02/2023

 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC.                  25

 specification meaningfully do so. Id. at 6:28–36 (explaining
 that “accelerated” transmission is “a process of receiving a
 data stream for transmission over a communication chan-
 nel, compressing the broadcast data . . . at a compression
 rate that increases the effective bandwidth of the commu-
 nication channel, and transmitting the compressed broad-
 cast data over the communication channel”); see also id. at
 7:11–14. And like the claims of the family 1 patents, claim
 1 of the ’751 patent fails to explain how to “analyze” data.
     In sum, the claims of the asserted patents are “data
 manipulation” claims that are recited at a high “level of re-
 sult-oriented generality” and that lack “sufficient recita-
 tion of how the purported invention[s]” accomplish the
 results. Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH,
 942 F.3d 1143, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citation omitted).
 They thus “amount[] to a mere implementation of . . . ab-
 stract idea[s].” Id.
     Realtime argues that the claims at issue here are like
 those we found eligible in Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA
 Corp., 867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017). See Realtime I, 831
 F. App’x at 496 (“Realtime identified Visual Memory . . . as
 the case most analogous to this one.”). We disagree. The
 claims there recited “an enhanced computer memory sys-
 tem” that used “programmable operational characteristics
 configurable based on the type of processor” to “enabl[e] in-
 teroperability with multiple different processors.” Visual
 Memory, 867 F.3d at 1259–60. The patent explained that
 the enhanced computer memory system “outperform[ed] a
 prior art memory system . . . armed with ‘a cache many
 times larger than the cumulative size of the subject
 caches.’” Id. at 1259. As we later explained, “[t]he patent
 did not merely claim this enhancement to the computer
 memory system; it explained how it worked, appending
 ‘263 frames of computer code.’” Univ. of Fla. Research
 Found., Inc. v. GE Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
 (distinguishing the claims in Visual Memory). The patents
 here, by contrast, fail to explain the “how.”
Case: 21-2251    Document: 95     Page: 26    Filed: 08/02/2023

 26                REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC.

     Because the claims of the asserted patents are directed
 to abstract ideas, we examine the claims at Alice step two
 to determine if the claims are transformed into subject
 matter beyond the abstract ideas themselves.
                      B. Alice Step Two
      At Alice step two, we look for an “inventive concept”—
 “an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to
 ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly
 more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Al-
 ice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citation and internal quotation
 marks omitted). In so doing, we consider the claim ele-
 ments—individually and as an ordered combination—“to
 assess whether [they] transform the nature of the claim
 into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea.”
 Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC,
 874 F.3d 1329, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).
 The inventive concept must amount to more than “well-un-
 derstood, routine, or conventional activities.” Alice, 573
 U.S. at 225 (cleaned up). And the “mere recitation of con-
 crete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent
 eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea.” In re TLI
 Commc’ns, LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir.
 2016). At the same time, “an inventive concept can be
 found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrange-
 ment of known, conventional pieces.” BASCOM Glob. In-
 ternet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341,
 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
     The district court found that the claims from the as-
 serted patents “simply apply an abstract idea on generic
 computers with generic techniques.” Realtime II, 537 F.
 Supp. 3d at 616. It thus found that the claims failed Alice
 step two. We agree.
     Realtime argues that “the disclosed inventions . . . pro-
 vide specific, unconventional technological solutions that
 improve computer functionality and overcome problems
 specifically arising in the realm of compression of digital
Case: 21-2251    Document: 95     Page: 27    Filed: 08/02/2023

 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC.                  27

 computer data.” Appellant’s Br. 63. But this “amounts to
 no more than a restatement of the assertion that the de-
 sired results are an advance.” Am. Axle & Mfg., 967 F.3d
 at 1299. As explained above, the claims here merely claim
 a result and are thus directed to ineligible subject matter.
 “‘[A] claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to
 which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept’ re-
 quired to cross the line into eligibility.” Id. (quoting BSG
 Tech, 899 F.3d at 1290).
     As for the specific patents, Realtime contends that the
 claims of the family 1 patents “require specific, unconven-
 tional combinations of specially configured computer ele-
 ments,” like using content dependent and content
 independent data compression, encoders, and processors.
 Appellant’s Br. 60–61. The common specification of the
 family 1 patents, however, does not purport to require the
 use of any special processor. See, e.g., ’728 patent at 6:32–
 37 (“[T]he system modules described herein are preferably
 implemented in software as an application program that is
 executable by, e.g., a general purpose computer or any ma-
 chine or device having any suitable and preferred micro-
 processor architecture.”). The same goes for the “encoders.”
 See, e.g., id. at 7:13–17 (“The encoder set . . . may include
 any number . . . of those lossless encoding techniques cur-
 rently well known within the art . . . .”); id. at 6:30–32
 (“[T]he present invention may be implemented in various
 forms of hardware, software, firmware, or a combination
 thereof.”). And the common specification explains that
 data can be analyzed “using methods known by those
 skilled in the art to extract the data compression type de-
 scriptor associated with the data block,” id. at 14:59–64,
 that “there are many conventional content dependent tech-
 niques,” id. at 2:67–3:2, and that it was known that the ef-
 fectiveness of data compression is “highly contingent upon
 the content of the data being compressed,” id. at 2:33–35.
      Realtime also argues that “analyzing the data to iden-
 tify one or more parameters or attributes and performing
Case: 21-2251    Document: 95      Page: 28    Filed: 08/02/2023

 28                REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC.

 compression with a plurality of different encoders based on
 that analysis” is a “non-conventional” function and that us-
 ing “multiple encoders to compress data blocks based on an
 analysis of the specific content or type of the data being en-
 coded without relying solely on a descriptor” is what the
 common specification of the family 1 patents “makes clear”
 is the “inventive concept.” Appellant’s Br. 64–65. But
 these are themselves abstract ideas and thus cannot pro-
 vide an inventive concept. BSG Tech, 899 F.3d at 1290.
     As for the family 2 patents, Realtime contends that
 they solve “problems in conventional digital data compres-
 sion systems,” like “bandwidth limitations,” by requiring
 “specific, unconventional combinations of specially config-
 ured elements.” Appellant’s Br. 61. Realtime, for example,
 points to ’908 patent claim 1’s “memory device” and “data
 accelerator,” the latter of which Realtime argues is “uncon-
 ventional” because it “requires two different compression
 techniques and the structural capability of compressing
 and storing digital data faster than the digital data can be
 stored in uncompressed form.” Id. But the “memory de-
 vice” is simply a generic computer component. See ’908 pa-
 tent at 5:42–47 (“The memory storage device 45 may be
 volatile or non-volatile in nature, or any combination
 thereof. Storage devices as known within the current art
 include all forms of random access memory . . . .”). The
 compression techniques are generic, well-known, and con-
 ventional. See, e.g., id. at 1:51–53, 11:31–45, 11:65–12:10,
 13:45–48, 16:52–53. And using a “data accelerator” to store
 data “faster” amounts to using a generic component “to in-
 crease the speed or efficiency of the process” and thus “does
 not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.”
 PersonalWeb Techs., 8 F.4th at 1319 (citations omitted).
 Using multiple compression techniques and compressing
 and storing data on a generic component faster than if it
 were uncompressed data, moreover, is an abstract idea and
 cannot provide an inventive concept. BSG Tech, 899 F.3d
 at 1290.
Case: 21-2251    Document: 95     Page: 29    Filed: 08/02/2023

 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC.                  29

      Realtime also highlights that claim 1 of the ’530 patent
 adds using a descriptor to decompress the compressed
 data. Appellant’s Br. 61–62. The ’530 patent specification,
 however, confirms that using a descriptor to decompress
 data is conventional, explaining that “other data decom-
 pression systems and methods known to those skilled in
 the art may be employed for providing accelerated data re-
 trieval.” ’530 patent at 14:42–48. Realtime also directs us
 to an encoder performing compression in claim 1 of the ’458
 patent. Yet neither the claim nor the specification de-
 scribes specific, unconventional encoding or compression
 techniques. So Realtime’s reliance on the encoder is mis-
 placed. See Adaptive Streaming Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., 836 F.
 App’x 900, 904 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (nonprecedential) (finding
 that claims failed Alice step two where there was “no iden-
 tification in the claims or written description of specific,
 unconventional encoding, decoding, compression, or broad-
 casting techniques”).
     As for family 3, Realtime asserts that the ’751 patent
 addresses problems in the prior art like “latency” and
 solves them “by providing an unconventional compression
 system allowing for a multiplication of bandwidth and a re-
 duction in transmission latency.” Appellant’s Br. 62.
 Realtime points to claim 25’s requirement of “a data server”
 that is implemented on “processors” and “memory sys-
 tems,” and that is configured to “analyze” data, “select” an
 encoder, “compress” the data using a “state machine,” and
 “store” the data. Id. But Realtime fails to explain how a
 “data server,” “processor,” and “memory system” are any-
 thing but generic computer components, and indeed, “it is
 hard to imagine a patent claim that recites hardware limi-
 tations in more generic terms.” In re Bd. of Trs. of Leland
 Stanford Junior Univ., 989 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed. Cir.
 2021) (explaining that patent reciting a method carried out
 by a “computer” with a “processor” and a “memory” failed
 to require a “specialized computer or a computer with a
 specialized memory or processor”). And as for the “state
Case: 21-2251    Document: 95     Page: 30   Filed: 08/02/2023

 30               REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC.

 machine,” Realtime has acknowledged that such machines
 are “well-known computer components.” J.A. 4921 at
 31:19–20.
     Realtime further contends that the ’751 patent pro-
 vides “unconventional technological solutions in digital
 data transmission,” by, for instance, providing “transmis-
 sion and transparent multiplication of digital data commu-
 nication bandwidth, as well as a potential reduction of the
 latency associated with data transmission of conventional
 systems.” Appellant’s Br. 69. Data transmission, however,
 is an abstract idea that does not provide an inventive con-
 cept. See Two-Way Media, 874 F.3d at 1340–41. And
 Realtime’s assertion of a potential reduction of the latency
 “amounts to no more than a restatement of the assertion
 that the desired results are an advance.” Am. Axle & Mfg.,
 967 F.3d at 1299.
     In short, we see nothing in the individual limitations
 or their ordered combination that transform the claims into
 patent-eligible subject matter. “[M]erely reciting an ab-
 stract idea performed on a set of generic computer compo-
 nents, as [the claims] do[] here, would ‘not contain an
 inventive concept.’” Two-Way Media, 874 F.3d at 1339
 (quoting BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1350).
                        CONCLUSION
      We have considered Realtime’s other arguments and
 find them unpersuasive. For the above reasons, we hold
 that the claims of the asserted patents are directed to pa-
 tent-ineligible subject matter. We thus affirm the district
 court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) based on subject-mat-
 ter ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
                        AFFIRMED
                           COSTS
 No costs.
Case: 21-2251       Document: 95           Page: 31        Filed: 08/02/2023

         NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

    United States Court of Appeals
        for the Federal Circuit
                       ______________________

           REALTIME DATA LLC, DBA IXO,
                 Plaintiff-Appellant

                                      v.

    ARRAY NETWORKS INC., NIMBUS DATA, INC.,
                 Defendants

     FORTINET, INC., REDUXIO SYSTEMS, INC.,
    QUEST SOFTWARE, INC., CTERA NETWORKS,
    LTD., ARYAKA NETWORKS, INC., OPEN TEXT,
   INC., MONGODB INC., EGNYTE, INC., PANZURA,
                       INC.,
                Defendants-Appellees

                       ______________________

                             2021-2251
                       ______________________

     Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 District of Delaware in No. 1:17-cv-00800-CFC, Chief
 Judge Colm F. Connolly.

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

           REALTIME DATA LLC, DBA IXO,
                 Plaintiff-Appellant

                                      v.
Case: 21-2251    Document: 95      Page: 32     Filed: 08/02/2023

 2                 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC.

           SPECTRA LOGIC CORPORATION,
                  Defendant-Appellee
                ______________________

                         2021-2291
                   ______________________

     Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 District of Delaware in No. 1:17-cv-00925-CFC, Chief
 Judge Colm F. Connolly.
                 ______________________

 NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
     This is properly an enablement case. The panel today
 invalidates patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by apply-
 ing the test for judicial exceptions to patent eligibility as
 presented by the Supreme Court in Alice and as enlarged
 by the Federal Circuit. I write separately to note once
 again that § 101 was never intended to bar categories of
 invention in this way. This judicial exception to eligibility
 is an unnecessary and confusing creation of the courts.
 This case is an example, for the enablement requirement
 of § 112 is better suited to determining validity of these
 claims than is the distortion of § 101. I respectfully dissent,
 and would remand for determination of validity under
 § 112.
     The current law of § 101 has diverged from its histori-
 cal purpose. Numerous scholars, practitioners, and Con-
 gresspeople have observed that the current law of § 101
 creates uncertainty and stifles innovation. As I have sum-
 marized:
     At the time of the Domestic Policy Review, the
     meaning of § 101 was not a topic of concern. Sec-
     tion 101 was understood as an introduction to the
     statute, not as a limitation on patentable subject
Case: 21-2251    Document: 95     Page: 33    Filed: 08/02/2023

 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC.                    3

     matter. The interpretation of patentable subject
     matter today is unsatisfactory; it is time to clarify
     the principles of patentable subject matter, and to
     apply principles supportive of innovation.
 Pauline Newman, The Birth of the Federal Circuit, AIPLA
 Q.J. 515, 518 (2022).
     Representative Doug Collins, then the ranking mem-
 ber of the House Judiciary Committee, complained about
 this court’s application of § 101, stating:
     It’s unthinkable . . . . The courts have misstated
     the law several times, which deprives many inno-
     vative products of adequate protection. Congress
     must establish a new eligibility test to encourage
     investment in developing new U.S. technologies
     and ensure American inventors aren’t at a global
     disadvantage.
 Rep. Doug Collins, Press Release, House of Representa-
 tives Judiciary Committee, Office of the Ranking Member
 (Oct. 4, 2019), https://republicans-judiciary.house.gov/
 press-release/collins-calls-for-new-patent-eligibility-test-
 following-flawed-court-ruling/ (discussing Am. Axle &
 Mfg., Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, 939 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir.
 2019), opinion withdrawn and replaced by 967 F.3d 1285
 (Fed. Cir. 2020)).
     Senator Chris Coons, chair of the Senate Subcommit-
 tee on Intellectual Property, recently stated:
     More than a decade after the Supreme Court
     waded into patent eligibility law, uncertainty re-
     mains about what areas of innovation are eligible
     for patent protection. Critical technologies like
     medical diagnostics and artificial intelligence can
     be protected with patents in Europe and China, but
     not in the United States.
Case: 21-2251    Document: 95     Page: 34    Filed: 08/02/2023

 4                 REALTIME DATA LLC v. ARRAY NETWORKS INC.

 Sen. Chris Coons, quoted in Sen. Thom Tillis, Press Release
 (June 22, 2023), https://www.tillis.senate.gov/2023/6/tillis-
 coons-introduce-landmark-legislation-to-restore-ameri-
 can-innovation. Senator Tillis, ranking member of the
 same subcommittee, added:
     I have long said that clear, strong, and predictable
     patent rights are imperative to enable investments
     in the broad array of innovative technologies that
     are critical to the economic and global competitive-
     ness of the United States, and to its national secu-
     rity . . . . Unfortunately, our current Supreme
     Court’s patent eligibility jurisprudence is under-
     mining American innovation and allowing foreign
     adversaries like China to overtake us in key tech-
     nology innovations.
 Sen. Thom Tillis, id.
     Eligibility law has been called a “morass of seemingly
 conflicting judicial decisions.” Michael Xun Liu, Subject
 matter Eligibility and Functional Claiming in Software Pa-
 tents, 20 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 227, 266 (2018). We should not
 wade further into this morass.
      This case is another example that conforms with our
 flawed precedent. I respectfully dissent. I would remand
 for determination of validity under § 112 and, if applicable,
 §§ 102 and 103.