Case: 20-1284 Document: 61 Page: 1 Filed: 03/25/2021
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
RIDEAPP INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LYFT, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
______________________
2020-1284
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California in No. 4:18-cv-07152-JST,
Judge Jon. S. Tigar.
______________________
Decided: March 25, 2021
______________________
CHARLES A. PANNELL, III, Addy Hart P.C., Atlanta, GA,
argued for appellant. Also represented by MEREDITH
MARTIN ADDY.
JEREMEY TAYLOR, Baker Botts L.L.P., San Francisco,
CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by SARAH J.
GUSKE; ELIZABETH KATHLEEN BOGGS, JOHN GAUSTAD,
KEITH MARVIN JUREK, Palo Alto, CA; JENNIFER COZEOLINO
TEMPESTA, New York, NY.
______________________
Case: 20-1284 Document: 61 Page: 2 Filed: 03/25/2021
2 RIDEAPP, INC. v. LYFT, INC.
Before WALLACH, CHEN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
CHEN, Circuit Judge.
RideApp Inc. (RideApp) appeals the district court’s
claim construction order finding claims 2, 3, and 6 of U.S.
Patent No. 6,697,730 (’730 patent) indefinite under 35
U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 1 for failing to disclose adequate structure
corresponding to various computer-implemented means-
plus-function claim terms. For the following reasons, we
affirm.
BACKGROUND
A
The ’730 patent is directed to an “urban transit system
based on digital cellular communications [and] GPS locat-
ing technology . . . to provide real-time command and con-
trol of passengers and vehicles.” See ’730 patent at
Abstract. A “central assigning system” (CAS) communi-
cates with and collects data from both passengers and ve-
hicles in the system. See id. at col. 4 ll. 3–6. The CAS is
“capable of matching a passenger’s trip request with cur-
rent transit parameters to determine vehicle assignment
and routes that reduce passenger trip and wait times,
wherein the current transit parameters and passenger lo-
cation are obtained via wireless communication devices op-
tionally capable of transmitting location data.” Id. at col. 3
ll. 56–62.
1 Section 112, ¶ 2 was replaced by § 112(b) when the
America Invents Act (AIA) took effect on September 12,
2012. See Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc. v. Life360, Inc.,
830 F.3d 1341, 1343 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Because the ap-
plication for the instant patent was filed before that date,
we refer to the pre-AIA version of § 112.
Case: 20-1284 Document: 61 Page: 3 Filed: 03/25/2021
RIDEAPP, INC. v. LYFT, INC. 3
Several of the patent’s figures relate to the invention’s
core feature: “real-time,” i.e., “on-demand,” “match[ing of]
a user’s [trip] request with existing [transit] services.” See
id. at col. 14 ll. 49–51. The patent’s Figure 5 illustrates “a
logic flow diagram of a preferred embodiment of the pre-
sent transit system.” See id. at col. 13 ll. 53–54. According
to the patent, Figure 6 explains Figure 5’s block 504—enti-
tled “Process Trip Request”—“in detail.” See id. at col. 14
l. 14. Additionally, the patent states that Figure 9 “show[s]
the interaction of passenger, central assigning system, and
vehicle.” See id. at col. 20 ll. 41–42.
The patent also includes a table purportedly providing
“exemplary central processing software subsystems” for
the disclosed invention. See id. at col. 20 ll. 42–43, Table
1. For example, Table 1’s “Find Best Trip” module “[s]olves
the trip assignment task based on available vehicles, their
schedules, and their passenger loadings.” Id. at Table 1.
B
RideApp sued Lyft, Inc. (Lyft), alleging that Lyft’s ride
and bikeshare services infringe claims 2, 3, and 6 of the
’730 patent when “[a] passenger uses the Lyft App to re-
quest or locate a ride and, through the Lyft App, a driver
accepts the request.” See J.A. 683, 1286. Claim 2 is repro-
duced below:
2. An automated system for providing unified bill-
ing for passenger transport comprising:
(a) a central data system for tracking passenger
transportation vehicle usage and distributing peri-
odic invoices for the usage; and
(b) a plurality of communication devices for provid-
ing wireless communication between passengers,
vehicles, and the central data system in connection
with the passenger transportation vehicle usage;
and
Case: 20-1284 Document: 61 Page: 4 Filed: 03/25/2021
4 RIDEAPP, INC. v. LYFT, INC.
(c) a wireless means of on-demand allocation of a
passenger to a specific vehicle through the central
data system.
’730 patent at claim 2 (emphasis added).
Claim 3 is an independent claim containing each of the
limitations of claim 2 and an additional limitation:
(d) a wireless means of informing the passenger of
the assignment and updated expected arrival time.
See id. at claim 3.
Claim 6 is also independent, contains the same first
two limitations as claims 2 and 3, i.e., limitations (a) and
(b), and adds a third limitation:
(c) a wireless means of detecting the proximity of the
passenger and alerting the passenger of the proxim-
ity of the vehicle.
See id. at claim 6 (emphasis added).
C
During claim construction, Lyft argued that the follow-
ing computer implemented means-plus-function claim lim-
itations were indefinite because the ’730 patent failed to
provide a corresponding structure—specifically, an algo-
rithm—for their respective functions recited in the claims:
a central data system for tracking passenger trans-
portation vehicle usage and distributing periodic
invoices for the usage;
a wireless means of on-demand allocation of a pas-
senger to a specific vehicle through the central data
system;
a wireless means of informing the passenger of the
assignment and updated expected arrival time;
and
Case: 20-1284 Document: 61 Page: 5 Filed: 03/25/2021
RIDEAPP, INC. v. LYFT, INC. 5
a wireless means of detecting the proximity of the
passenger and alerting the passenger of the prox-
imity of the vehicle.
The district court agreed with Lyft as to each of the
identified means-plus-function limitations and invalidated
each of the asserted claims. See RideApp, Inc. v. Lyft, Inc.,
No. 18-CV-07152-JST, 2019 WL 7834175, at *1 (N.D. Cal.
Oct. 16, 2019) (Claim Construction Order). As to “on-de-
mand allocation,” the district court determined first that
the disclosed system step of “assignment”—matching a
user’s request to existing transit services—was a part of
the allocation function. See id. at *8. The district court
then rejected RideApp’s argument that the “Find Best
Trip” module in Table 1 provides an algorithm for the trip
assignment function because it disclosed no procedure for
doing so. See id. at *9. Similarly, the district court found
that Figures 5 and 6 and the corresponding specification
discussion of those figures failed to disclose the requisite
structure. See id.
The district court likewise found the “detecting the
proximity” limitation indefinite. See id. at *11. The dis-
trict court adopted RideApp’s interpretation of proximity
as referring to geographic distance, but nonetheless found
the limitation indefinite because “the specification is silent
on how proximity is to be calculated.” See id. The district
court rejected RideApp’s argument that a simple algo-
rithm, such as the Pythagorean theorem, need not be dis-
closed because a straight-line calculation is just one of
several ways to calculate proximity. See id.
Having found each asserted claim indefinite, the dis-
trict court entered final judgment in favor of Lyft. See J.A.
1–3. RideApp appeals to this court. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
Case: 20-1284 Document: 61 Page: 6 Filed: 03/25/2021
6 RIDEAPP, INC. v. LYFT, INC.
DISCUSSION
RideApp argues that the district court erred in finding
each of the four limitations at issue, and thus, claims 2, 3,
and 6, indefinite. Because we agree with the district court
that the on-demand allocation and proximity limitations
are indefinite, we affirm without addressing the tracking
and distributing or expected arrival time limitations.
We review a district court’s indefiniteness conclusion
de novo and any underlying factual findings based on ex-
trinsic evidence for clear error. See Williamson v. Citrix
Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en
banc). Construing means-plus-function terms requires
first identifying the claimed function(s) of the phrase and
second determining what structure disclosed in the specifi-
cation performs that function. See id. at 1351. The intrin-
sic evidence must “clearly link[] or associate[] that
structure to the function recited in the claim.” Id. at 1352.
For a patent to satisfy this standard, a skilled artisan must
“be []able to recognize the structure in the specification and
associate it with the corresponding function in the claim.”
Id. When a function is implemented in a special-purpose
computer, “the specification [must] disclose an algorithm
for performing the claimed function,” which “may be ex-
pressed as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow
chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient
structure.” See id.
A
Regarding the “on-demand allocation” limitation, we
agree with the district court that the “on-demand alloca-
tion” function requires the “wireless means” to assign a
passenger to a specific vehicle. See Claim Construction Or-
der at *8. The district court found that allocation included
assignment for several reasons. First, it concluded that the
“assignment” recited in the fourth limitation of claim 3
would have no antecedent if assignment were not a part of
Case: 20-1284 Document: 61 Page: 7 Filed: 03/25/2021
RIDEAPP, INC. v. LYFT, INC. 7
“allocation.” See id. Additionally, the district court found
that the plain meaning of the term “allocation” supported
its construction, which was not contradicted by any intrin-
sic evidence. See id. We see no error in the district court’s
construction of “allocation” as including “assignment,” par-
ticularly in light of RideApp’s representations to the Patent
Office that “[o]n-demand allocation includes ‘assignment.’”
See J.A. 1446.
Next, we agree with the district court that the patent
fails to disclose sufficient algorithmic structure for the as-
signment function. See Claim Construction Order at *9.
RideApp largely relies on Figures 5 and 6 as detailing the
assignment algorithm. See Appellant’s Br. at 53–58. Yet
neither figure describes how the system analyzes different
passenger transportation requests and vehicle availability
to assign a particular route or vehicle to a given user. In-
stead, the patent simply calls for the system to “match” an
available vehicle to a passenger request. See, e.g., Figure
6; col. 14, ll. 49–53. At oral argument, counsel for RideApp
cited column 15 line 25 and “between columns seven and
eight” as the best evidence of an assignment algorithm.
Oral Arg. at 11:27–12:16. But the cited specification por-
tions merely state that “[o]nce the routes and methods are
determined, the central processing system allocates them
based on a passenger’s parameters,” ’730 patent at col. 15
ll. 24–26, and “[t]he data interpreted and evaluated by the
central assigning system can include . . . communications
to vehicles to allocate routes, schedules and passengers,”
id. at col. 7 l. 65–col. 8 l. 4. Similarly, the Find Best Trip
module in Table 1 merely states that it “[s]olves the trip
assignment task” without explaining how it does so. See
id. at Table 1. These passages, like the others cited by
RideApp, are too generic and fail to provide sufficient algo-
rithmic structure for the assigning function embedded in
on-demand allocation. This limitation, recited in claims 2
and 3, is therefore indefinite.
Case: 20-1284 Document: 61 Page: 8 Filed: 03/25/2021
8 RIDEAPP, INC. v. LYFT, INC.
B
We likewise agree with the district court that the
“proximity” limitation recited in claim 6 is indefinite. Ride-
App contends that the district court erred in faulting the
patent for failing to disclose a “simple calculation” which,
according to RideApp, would not “affect claim scope.” See
Appellant’s Br. at 76–78.
RideApp’s first point—that a skilled artisan “would
know many methods to calculate distance between sets of
coordinates,” id. at 77—underscores why this means-plus-
function limitation is indefinite. RideApp argued to the
district court that a skilled artisan, or even a high-school
student, could use a formula as simple as the Pythagorean
theorem to ascertain the distance between two points. See
Claim Construction Order at *11. Yet as Lyft points out,
the calculation of an as-the-crow-flies, straight-line dis-
tance makes little sense in the context of vehicle travel con-
strained to roadways. As Lyft’s expert testified, a
calculation considering the layout of the underlying street
system would be more appropriate. See id. On appeal,
RideApp does not explicitly defend its Pythagorean theo-
rem approach. Rather, it contends that the invention uti-
lizes some unidentified “simple calculation” to calculate
distance. See Appellant’s Br. at 78. RideApp’s lack of spec-
ificity is unsurprising given its only proposed “simple cal-
culation” would make little sense in this context and the
patent’s failure to provide any guidance on the scope of this
limitation. Without any limit on how the invention calcu-
lates proximity, RideApp “has in effect claimed everything
that [performs the task] under the sun.” See Claim Con-
struction Order at *10 (quoting ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Soft-
ware, Inc., 700 F.3d 509, 519 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
RideApp’s second point—that any disclosed algorithm
would not affect claims scope—misunderstands the law. A
computer-implemented, means-plus-function claim ele-
ment is, by definition, limited to the disclosed algorithm
Case: 20-1284 Document: 61 Page: 9 Filed: 03/25/2021
RIDEAPP, INC. v. LYFT, INC. 9
and equivalents thereof. See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1347
(noting the scope of means-plus-function claim element is
limited “to only the structure . . . described in the specifica-
tion as corresponding to the claimed function and equiva-
lents thereof”). As any disclosed algorithm would
necessarily affect claim scope, we decline to resurrect claim
6 on this basis.
CONCLUSION
We have considered RideApp’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons set forth
above, we affirm the district court’s order finding claims 2,
3, and 6 of the ’730 patent invalid as indefinite.
AFFIRMED