Federal Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Patent Claims Directed to Pixel Animation as Ineligible Subject Matter Under 35 U.S.C. § 101

February 13, 2024

Reading Time : 4 min

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of patent claims directed to changing the position of components in an image to create the appearance of movement, i.e., animation. The court agreed that the claims are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they perform digital animation, an abstract idea, without including any technological improvement to computer functionality.

Plotagraph, Inc. v. Lightricks, Ltd., No. 2023-1048 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 22, 2024) (nonprecedential).

Plotagraph sued Lightricks in the Southern District of Texas for allegedly infringing five patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,182,641. The patents are directed to technology allowing a user to select a set of pixels within a photo or video file and then shift them to simulate motion. The independent claims of the patents all generally recite: “(1) a preamble identifying a computer system, computer program product, method, or computer-readable media, for automating the shifting of pixels; (2) a series of preparatory steps or features initiated by a user; and (3) a final pixel-shifting step.” The court deemed claim 12 of the ’641 patent to be representative, which recites the steps of:

receiving a first indication of a first starting point through a user interface, wherein the first starting point is received through a user selection of a first portion of a first image frame;

receiving, through the user interface, a first direction associated with the first starting point;

creating a first digital link extending in the first direction from the first starting point;

selecting a first set of pixels that are along the first digital link and extend in the first direction away from the first starting point; and

shifting the first set of pixels, in the first image frame, in the first direction.

The court analyzed eligibility using the Supreme Court’s two-step Alice framework. In step one, a court determines whether the claims are “directed to a patent-ineligible concept,” such as an abstract idea. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014). If they are, the court proceeds to step two—the search for an “inventive concept”—and 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. (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Lab’ys, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78-79 (2012)).

1. Alice Step One

Addressing Alice step one, the Federal Circuit considered the claims as a whole and in the context of the specification and determined that they are directed to the abstract idea of changing the position of components in an image to create the appearance of movement, i.e., animation. The court found that performing animation in the realm of computers, i.e., digital animation, where the components that are moved are pixels, does not render the claims any less abstract. There was no dispute that the claimed pixel-shifting is performed using a generic computer, and the court found that “the computer simply performs more efficiently what could otherwise be accomplished manually.”

The court distinguished the claims here from claims found eligible in Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and Research Corp. Technologies v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In Enfish, the claims were not abstract because they improved the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory by reciting a “self-referential table” for a computer database. In Research Corp., the claimed processes provided the technological advance of producing “higher quality halftone images while using less processor power and memory space.” The court also distinguished the patent eligible claims in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), because the McRO claims incorporated “an in-depth, extensive set of rules that enabled computers to automate phenomes in 3-D animation, eliminating the previous need for human-intermediated judgment and steps.”

2. Alice Step Two

Addressing Alice step two, the Federal Circuit considered four features that the patent owner alleged supplies an inventive concept, including (1) “the use of paths or digital links and starting and ending points to provide directions for automatic shifting”; (2) “non-linear paths”; (3) “masks which prevent shifting” and (4) “edges/anchor points for creation of masks.” The court found that none of these features provides an inventive concept because each feature appears to be “inherent in nonautomated computer animation” and is “a parameter defined by a user through conventional user-interface tools ‘specified at a high level of generality’” (quoting Alice). The patent owner’s complaint contended that “[t]hese features were not previously used with image editing, were not generic computer software or hardware, and were not well-understood, routine, or conventional at the time of invention.” The Federal Circuit stated, however, that “such conclusory statements may be disregarded when evaluating a complaint under [a] Rule 12(b)(6) if the complaint and record do not support that conclusion.”

Practice Tip: Because claims are analyzed as a whole and in context of the specification, patent owners should focus the claims on technological improvements to computer functionality and describe those technological improvements in the specification, including their benefits over the prior art. Patent owners should avoid merely claiming the use of a generic computer to perform a manual task, described at a high level of generality. Patent owners should also provide support in the complaint for the inventive concept, not merely conclusory statements, to avoid a dismissal on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

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.