Federal Circuit: Improvements Inherent to Using a Computer, Such as Improved Speed and Efficiency, Do Not Transform an Abstract Idea into a Patent-Eligible Concept

Mar 13, 2020

Reading Time : 3 min

Dish Network Corporation petitioned for covered business method (CBM) review of two related patents, U.S. Patents 8,719,090 and 9,053,494, owned by Customedia Technologies, LLC. The claims were directed to a data management system, including a remote server and local receiver unit (e.g., a set-top box). Content providers transmit advertisements to the local unit via the server. The local unit includes storage, which can be rented or purchased by advertisers to store the advertisements. By dedicating storage for advertising data, Customedia believed the system could transfer data at improved speeds and efficiencies and prevent inoperability due to insufficient storage. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”), however, decided that the claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit analyzed patent eligibility using the Supreme Court’s two-step framework. A court first determines whether the claims are “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014). If so, the court then considers “the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id.

Addressing step one, the Federal Circuit recognized that computer-related inventions are not directed to an abstract idea if they improve the functionality of the computer or network platform itself. The same cannot be said, however, for inventions that improve an abstract concept by using a computer merely as a tool. Any inherent improvement from applying an abstract idea on a computer in its ordinary capacity, such as improved speed or efficiency, is insufficient to render the claims patent-eligible.

In this case, the Federal Circuit found that the claims were directed to an abstract idea because the purported improvements did not improve the functioning of the computer or network platform itself. The court distinguished this case, for example, from Ancora Technologies Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., in which the patent eligible claims were directed to storing a verification structure in computer memory. There, the claims improved computer security. Because the claims addressed the “vulnerability of license-authorization software to hacking,” they were “directed to a solution to a computer-functionality problem.”

Turning to step two, the Federal Circuit considered the claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, and decided that they did not identify an inventive concept in the application of the ineligible matter to which the claims were directed. Aside from the abstract idea of delivering targeted advertising, the additional elements merely recited generic computer components, including a programmable receiver unit, a storage device, a remote server and a processor. The specification acknowledged that the storage device could be any known in the art and that the receiver unit may be any capable of receiving broadcast information.

Customedia argued that the claims recited an inventive concept based on the innovative “use of a programmable receiver to dedicate a section of storage for only specifically identified advertising data.” The Federal Circuit, however, found that “invocation of ‘already-available’ computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance … amounts to a recitation of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional.” Accordingly, the court concluded that the Board did not err in holding the claims patent ineligible under § 101.

Practice Tip: Patent owners should be careful not to conflate an invention’s ability to improve the functionality of a computer or network platform itself with a generic computer’s inherent ability to improve an abstract idea or fundamental practice. Although the distinction may be subtle in some cases, the Federal Circuit has repeatedly decided the former is directed to patent-eligible subject matter under the Supreme Court’s two-step framework and the latter is directed to the patent-ineligible abstract idea or practice.

Customedia Technologies, LLC v. Dish Network Corp., No. 2018-2239 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2020).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

August 11, 2025

In considering a motion to dismiss infringement claims for two related patents, the District of Massachusetts recently held that pre-suit knowledge of a “parent” patent, without more, is insufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge of the “child” patent for purposes of indirect and willful infringement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 8, 2025

Following a jury verdict finding trade secret misappropriation, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted-in-part a plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction to prohibit defendants from using plaintiff’s trade secrets. The district court further required defendants to reassign to plaintiff patents and patent applications that disclosed or were derived from plaintiff’s trade secrets as part of its equitable relief.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 6, 2025

In ruling on a recent motion to strike, a judge in the Eastern District of Texas permitted a damages expert to rely on a damages theory based on defendant’s “avoided costs,” holding that this theory did not run afoul of the “entire market value rule.”

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board’s analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal error and was not supported by substantial evidence. According to the court, the board applied a more exacting and improperly heightened nexus standard than is required by law for license evidence.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

A Northern District of California judge recently granted a motion to reconsider his summary judgment ruling that defendant was barred from raising certain “device art” due to IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). In the original ruling, the judge adopted the broader rule that IPR estoppel applies to device art that is “materially identical” to patents or printed publications that petitioners raised, or could have raised, in an IPR. Following that ruling, however, the Federal Circuit issued its Ingenico decision adopting the narrower view that IPR estoppel applies only to “grounds” based on patents and printed publications and not to device-based grounds. Citing Ingenico as a “change of law,” defendant moved for reconsideration of the court’s ruling, and the court granted the motion.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based on petitions advancing different constructions of the same claim term. The Director expressed concerns that permitting multiple petitions based on alternative claim constructions effectively circumvents word count limitations, strains board resources, and undermines procedural efficiency.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 25, 2025

Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Qualcomm II) raised questions about the extent to which petitioners can rely on applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in inter partes review proceedings.  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. largely cabins the Qualcomm II decision to its particular facts and makes clear that AAPA can be used as evidence of background knowledge as part of an obviousness argument.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a “basis” for a ground is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). In doing so, the Court rejected the PTAB’s “blanket rule” that “AAPA used in combination with prior art patents or printed publications under § 311(b) is ipso facto not the basis or part of the basis of a ground.” Ultimately, while the case clarifies that expressly listing AAPA in an IPR ground is improper, the precise line between proper and improper uses of AAPA in other instances remains unclear.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.