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 Cir. Jan. 22, 2024) (nonprecedential).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

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

IP Newsflash

July 1, 2025

In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that the enablement inquiry applied to prior art references in the context of an anticipation defense differs from the enablement inquiry applied when evaluating the claims of a patent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 26, 2025

The Northern District of Ohio denied a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce test results referenced in its initial disclosures and complaint. The court found that because the “test results are not facts but rather are opinions,” the information was protected as work product. Furthermore, because that testing would not be used as evidence in the litigation, the defendant was not prejudiced.

...

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.