Case: 22-2109 Document: 61 Page: 1 Filed: 04/04/2024
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
AI VISUALIZE, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., MACH7
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees
______________________
2022-2109
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware in No. 1:21-cv-01458-RGA, Judge
Richard G. Andrews.
______________________
Decided: April 4, 2024
______________________
RAJKUMAR VINNAKOTA, Cole Schotz P.C., Dallas, TX,
argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by
TIMOTHY J.H. CRADDOCK, VISHAL H. PATEL.
ANISH R. DESAI, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New
York, NY, argued for all defendants-appellees. Defendant-
appellee Nuance Communications, Inc. also represented by
DAVID JASON LENDER; AMANDA BRANCH, PRIYATA PATEL,
Washington, DC; DAVID GREENBAUM, Greenbaum Law
LLC, Englewood, NJ.
Case: 22-2109 Document: 61 Page: 2 Filed: 04/04/2024
2 AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
ALAN RICHARD SILVERSTEIN, Connolly Gallagher LLP,
Wilmington, DE, for defendant-appellee Mach7 Technolo-
gies, Inc.
______________________
Before MOORE, Chief Judge, REYNA and HUGHES, Circuit
Judges.
REYNA, Circuit Judge.
AI Visualize, Inc. sued Nuance Communications, Inc.
and Mach7 Technologies, Inc. in the District of Delaware
for patent infringement. Nuance and Mach7 moved to dis-
miss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for fail-
ure to state a claim. They argued that the asserted patent
claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter
and therefore invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district
court granted the motion, finding the asserted claims were
directed to an abstract idea and failed to provide an in-
ventive step that transformed that abstract idea into a pa-
tent-eligible invention. The district court entered
judgment and dismissed AI Visualize’s case. For the rea-
sons below, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
A. The Asserted Patents
The four patents at issue are U.S. Patent Nos.
8,701,167 (’167 patent), 9,106,609 (’609 patent), 9,438,667
(’667 patent), and 10,930,397 (’397 patent). They are part
of the same patent family and share substantially the same
specification. 1 The field of the asserted patents generally
relates to visualization of medical scans. Each patent is
titled “Method and system for fast access to advanced vis-
ualization of medical scans using a dedicated web portal.”
1 We refer to the ’609 patent specification for all four
asserted patents.
Case: 22-2109 Document: 61 Page: 3 Filed: 04/04/2024
AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 3
According to the patents, medical imaging systems like
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans typically create a
collection of two-dimensional cross-section images of a pa-
tient’s body or organ. ’609 patent, 1:27–32. These images
are often stored together at a centralized server as a three-
dimensional collection of data representing the scanned
area, referred to as a “volume visualization dataset” or
“VVD”. Id. at 1:30–35. At the time of the invention, “[t]ech-
nology exist[ed]” to use these VVDs “to present rich[] three-
dimensional (3D) views from existing two-dimensional (2D)
scans that may lead to better diagnosis and prognosis.” Id.
at 1:22–25; see also id. at 1:35–46.
But the inventors recognized complications with at-
tempts to view portions of these large VVDs at a client com-
puter. To look at a three-dimensional view, “either the
user’s computer or a dedicated server need[ed] to be pow-
erful enough to support [the] processing power and the 2D
scans need[ed] to be directly available to the user’s com-
puter via a high speed communication link.” Id. at 1:49–53.
The patents thus explain that “[t]he present invention
overcomes this limitation by teaching a method and system
of a common and centralized infrastructure, for receiving,
storing, processing and viewing large medical scans via a
low-bandwidth web portal.” Id. at 1:58–62. They describe
systems and methods for users to review three-dimensional
(or higher dimension) “virtual views” of a VVD on a com-
puter connected to the internet without having to transmit
or locally store the entire VVD. Id. at 2:52–57.
At issue in this appeal are claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 12, and 13
of the ’167 patent; claims 1, 4, 6–9, 19, 20, 22, 25, and 26 of
the ’609 patent; claims 1–3, 8, 9, 11, 14, and 15 of the ’667
patent; and claims 1–3, 11–14, and 16–18 of the ’397 pa-
tent. The parties agree that for purposes of a 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 analysis, these asserted claims can be sorted into
three groups, with each group represented by one claim of
the ’609 patent. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360,
1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims may be treated
Case: 22-2109 Document: 61 Page: 4 Filed: 04/04/2024
4 AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
as “representative” in a § 101 inquiry if a patentee makes
no “meaningful argument for the distinctive significance of
any claim limitations not found in the representative
claim”).
The claims in group 1 involve systems where a web ap-
plication determines which frames of a virtual view, if any,
are already stored locally on a user’s device; directs the
server to create any necessary, additional frames for trans-
mission to the user’s device; compiles at the user’s device
the locally-stored and newly-received frames to create the
desired virtual view; and displays the user’s requested vir-
tual view. ’609 patent, claim 1. The parties agree that
claim 1 of the ’609 patent is representative of the group 1
claims. 2 Claim 1 recites:
1. A system for viewing at a client device
at a remote location a series of three-di-
mensional virtual views over the Internet
of a volume visualization dataset contained
on at least one centralized database com-
prising:
at least one transmitter for accepting vol-
ume visualization dataset from remote lo-
cation and transmitting it securely to the
centralized database;
at least one central data storage medium
containing the volume visualization da-
taset;
a plurality of servers in communication
with the at least one centralized database
2 The group 1 claims are: claims 1, 4, and 6–9 of the
’609 patent; claim 1 of the ’167 patent; claims 1–3 of the
’667 patent; and claims 1–3, 11–14, and 16–18 of the ’397
patent.
Case: 22-2109 Document: 61 Page: 5 Filed: 04/04/2024
AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 5
and capable of processing the volume visu-
alization dataset to create virtual views
based on client request;
a resource manager device for load balanc-
ing the plurality of servers;
a security device controlling the plurality of
communications between a client device,
and the server; including resource manager
and central storage medium;
at least one physically secured site for
housing the centralized database, plurality
of servers, at least a resource manager, and
at least a security device;
a web application adapted to satisfy a
user’s request for the three-dimensional
virtual views by: a) accepting at a remote
location at least one user request for a se-
ries of virtual views of the volume visuali-
zation dataset, the series of views
comprising a plurality of separate view
frames, the remote location having a local
data storage medium for storing frames of
views of the volume visualization dataset,
b) determining if any frame of the re-
quested views of the volume visualization
dataset is stored on the local data storage
medium, c) transmitting from the remote
location to at least one of the servers a re-
quest for any frame of the requested views
not stored on the local data storage me-
dium, d) at at least one of the servers, cre-
ating the requested frames of the requested
views from the volume visualization da-
taset in the central storage medium, e)
transmitting the created frames of the re-
quested views from at least one of the
Case: 22-2109 Document: 61 Page: 6 Filed: 04/04/2024
6 AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
servers to the client device, f) receiving the
requested views from the at least one
server, and displaying to the user at the re-
mote location the requested series of three-
dimensional virtual views of the volume
visualization dataset by sequentially dis-
playing frames transmitted from at least
one of the servers along with any frames of
the requested series of views stored on the
local data storage medium.
Id. at claim 1.
Claim 19 of the ’609 patent, a dependent claim that de-
pends from claim 1, is representative of the group 2
claims. 3 The claims in group 2 involve the same core sys-
tem as the group 1 claims. The group 2 claims further re-
quire that if a virtual view has been previously requested
by a user, it is assigned a “unique identifiable key.” Id. at
18:42–44. The web application compares the current user
request for a virtual view to any previous user requests and
determines whether any image frames with a correspond-
ing unique identifiable key are already locally stored. Id.
at 18:48–60.
Claim 22 of the ’609 patent is representative of the
group 3 claims. 4 Unlike the claims in groups 1 and 2, the
claims in group 3 do not include the step of initially check-
ing to see whether any frames for the user’s requested vir-
tual view are stored locally. See generally id. at 19:26–51.
The web application requests all the frames from the
3 The group 2 claims are: claims 19–20 of the ’609
patent; claims 6–7 of the ’167 patent; and claims 8–9 of the
’667 patent.
4 The group 3 claims are: claims 22, 25, and 26 of the
’609 patent; claims 9, 12, and 13 of the ’167 patent; and
claims 11, 14, and 15 of the ’667 patent.
Case: 22-2109 Document: 61 Page: 7 Filed: 04/04/2024
AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 7
centralized server. The server transmits lower-quality ver-
sions of the frames for immediate viewing. It then trans-
mits the higher-quality versions.
B. Procedural History
In October 2021, AI Visualize sued Appellees Nuance
Communications, Inc. and Mach7 Technologies, Inc. (col-
lectively, Nuance) in the District of Delaware for patent in-
fringement. After Nuance moved to dismiss AI Visualize’s
complaint for failure to state a claim, AI Visualize filed a
first amended complaint. Nuance again moved to dismiss.
AI Visualize, Inc. v. Nuance Commc’ns, Inc., 610 F. Supp.
3d 638, 640–41 (D. Del. 2022) (“Decision”). It argued that
the amended complaint should be dismissed because the
asserted claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject
matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Id.
In its decision regarding the motion, the district court
first observed that “[n]either party has argued that the
Amended Complaint provides any additional information
relevant to the patent eligibility of the Asserted Claims and
neither party asserts that claim construction is needed.”
Id. at 644. The district court then reviewed the claims, ap-
plying the two-step Alice inquiry, and concluded that all
the asserted claims were patent-ineligible. See id. at 649.
Turning to Alice step one, the district court concluded
that all the asserted claims are directed to the abstract idea
of “retrieving user-requested, remotely stored infor-
mation.” See, e.g., id. at 646. The district court reviewed
the specification and found that the asserted patents at-
tempted to address prior art problems with transmitting
large VVDs over a standard internet connection. Id. The
district court stated that the focus of the claimed advance
over the prior art is “selectively accessing user-requested
data, remotely, that is stored in a centralized storage loca-
tion.” Id. It rejected AI Visualize’s arguments that the
claims are directed to improvements in computer function-
ality. Id.
Case: 22-2109 Document: 61 Page: 8 Filed: 04/04/2024
8 AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
At Alice step two, the district court independently con-
sidered each of the three representative claims. It con-
cluded that no claim limitations transformed the
representative claims into a patent-eligible applications of
an abstract idea. For example, for the group 1 claims, the
district court found that the “inventive component of
Claim 1 is the ability to obtain virtual views of a VVD over
a low bandwidth, high latency network.” Id. at 647 (inter-
nal quotations omitted). It then stated that only one limi-
tation in Claim 1 related to “achieving that stated goal,”
and concluded that the limitation was “claimed function-
ally, at a high level of generality,” such that it did not save
the claims from abstraction. Id. at 647–48. It conducted a
similar Alice step two inquiry for the group 2 and group 3
claims, and ultimately held all asserted claims patent-inel-
igible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See id. at 648–49.
AI Visualize 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, in this
case, 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
Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Id. (citing Ballentine v.
United States, 486 F.3d 806, 808 (3d Cir. 2007)). To survive
a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must allege “enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Section 101 of the Patent Act provides that: “Whoever
invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, 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
Case: 22-2109 Document: 61 Page: 9 Filed: 04/04/2024
AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 9
abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v.
CLS Bank Intern., 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (citations omit-
ted). The Supreme Court has articulated a two-step test,
commonly referred to as the “Alice” test, for examining
whether a patent claims patent-ineligible subject matter.
Id. at 217–18. Under step one of the Alice test, we review
whether a claim is directed to a patent-ineligible concept
like an abstract idea. Id. at 217. If the answer is no, then
the inquiry ends. Id. But if the answer is yes, the inquiry
proceeds to the second step. Id. At step two, we review
whether the claim recites elements sufficient to transform
it into a patent-eligible application. Id. at 217–18.
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, 881 F.3d at 1365. And it
may be resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion “where the un-
disputed facts, considered under the standards required by
that Rule, require a holding of ineligibility under the sub-
stantive standards of law.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic,
LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
A. Alice Step One
Under Alice step one, we consider whether the claims
at issue are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter,
here, an abstract idea. This “directed to” inquiry does more
than “simply ask whether the claims involve a patent-inel-
igible concept.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d
1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis in original). Instead,
we must look to the character of the claims as a whole to
determine whether they are “directed to” patent-ineligible
subject matter. Id.
We often conduct the Alice step one inquiry by examin-
ing the “focus of the claimed advance over the prior
art.” Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838
F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Enfish, 822 F.3d
Case: 22-2109 Document: 61 Page: 10 Filed: 04/04/2024
10 AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
at 1335. In the realm of computer-related technology, such
as in this case, patent claims may be non-abstract at Alice
step one if the focus of the claimed advance is on an im-
provement in computer technologies, rather than the mere
use of computers. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claims must “fo-
cus on a specific means or method that improves the rele-
vant technology.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am.
Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
We determine if the claim’s character as a whole is di-
rected to ineligible subject matter by considering the claim
limitations that are purported to describe the claimed ad-
vance over the prior art. Free Stream Media Corp. v. Al-
phonso Inc., 996 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2021). We
recognize the focus of the claims without characterizing the
claims at too high of a level of generality, untethered from
the claim language itself. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1337. Fi-
nally, we consider the claims in light of the specification
but avoid importing concepts from the specification into the
claims. ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d
759, 767, 769 (Fed. Cir. 2019); cf. Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
We agree with the district court that at Alice step one,
all the asserted claims were directed to an abstract idea.
See, e.g., Decision, 610 F. Supp. 3d at 646. We have ex-
plained that the steps of obtaining, manipulating, and dis-
playing data, particularly when claimed at a high level of
generality, are abstract concepts. See, e.g., Elec. Power
Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353–54 (collecting cases). Here, the
claims in groups 1 and 2 recite a system that includes the
functionally-oriented steps of: storing data (VVD) on a
server, accepting user requests to view a portion of that
data (virtual views), checking for the location of all data
needed for the virtual view, “creating” image frames from
any non-locally-stored virtual view data, transmitting all
non-locally-stored image frames to the user, compiling all
image frames, and sequentially displaying the image
Case: 22-2109 Document: 61 Page: 11 Filed: 04/04/2024
AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 11
frames to the user. See ’609 patent, claim 1. The group 3
claims are similar. They involve transmitting two versions
of all frames—initial, low-quality versions followed by
higher-quality versions—from the server to the user. Id.
at claim 22. In other words, the asserted claims are di-
rected to converting data and using computers to collect,
manipulate, and display the data.
We reached a similar conclusion in Hawk Tech. Sys.,
LLC v. Castle Retail, LLC, 60 F.4th 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
Hawk considered patent claims involving “viewing multi-
ple simultaneously displayed and stored video images on a
remote viewing device of a video surveillance system.” Id.
at 1352. The patent holder emphasized that the claims re-
quired converting video data using certain parameters in
such a manner that the data could be manipulated and dis-
played to conserve bandwidth and preserve the data qual-
ity. Id. at 1357. But “converting information from one
format to another . . . is an abstract idea.” Id.
AI Visualize argues that the claims are not directed to
an abstract idea because the claims require the creation of
“on the fly” virtual views at a client computer. See, e.g.,
Appellant Br. 28–29; Reply Br. 4. But the claim language
makes clear that virtual view “creation” is achieved by the
manipulation of a portion of the existing VVD. See, e.g.,
’609 Patent, 17:25–27, 17:38–39. For example, Claim 1 of
the ’609 patent requires “accepting at a remote location at
least one user request for a series of virtual views of the
volume visualization dataset” and “creating the requested
frames of the requested views from the volume visualiza-
tion dataset.” Id. (emphasis added). As in Hawk, this “cre-
ation” of a virtual view from the existing VVD, recited in
general terms, is abstract data manipulation.
AI Visualize points to multiple passages of the specifi-
cation to support its view that “creation” of virtual views
provides a technical solution to a technical problem, includ-
ing one passage that addresses dynamic and static virtual
Case: 22-2109 Document: 61 Page: 12 Filed: 04/04/2024
12 AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
views by describing how related image frames are selected
from a VVD. See id. at 9:34–52. As noted, we refuse to
import details from the specification if those details are
themselves not claimed. ChargePoint, 920 F.3d at 769.
There is no recitation in the claim about how to create
frames or virtual views, much less in a manner that would
meaningfully support a technical solution to a technical
problem in the prior art.
We conclude that the asserted claims are directed to an
abstract idea.
B. Alice Step Two
AI Visualize argues that to the extent the claims are
found to be patent-ineligible at Alice step one, the claims
are made patent-eligible at Alice step two.
At Alice step two, we consider the claim elements indi-
vidually and as an ordered combination to assess whether
they “transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligi-
ble 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). At this step we must
ask: “[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?” Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Lab’ys, Inc., 566 U.S.
66, 78 (2012). To survive at Alice step two, a claim must
recite something “significantly more” than an abstract idea
itself. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18. A claim cannot rest on
the patent-ineligible concept alone to transform the inven-
tion into something significantly more than that concept.
BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290
(Fed. Cir. 2018). Nor can claim elements or combinations
of claim elements that are routine, conventional, or well-
known transform the claims. Id. at 1290–91.
Although Alice step two involves a question of law,
whether a claim limitation or combination of limitations is
well-understood, routine, and conventional may involve an
underlying factual question. Id. at 1290 (“Whether a
Case: 22-2109 Document: 61 Page: 13 Filed: 04/04/2024
AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 13
combination of claim limitations supplies an inventive con-
cept that renders a claim ‘significantly more’ than an ab-
stract idea to which it is directed is a question of law.
Underlying factual determinations may inform this legal
determination.”). Thus, at the motion to dismiss stage, “pa-
tentees who adequately allege their claims contain in-
ventive concepts survive a § 101 eligibility analysis under
Rule 12(b)(6).” Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Soft-
ware, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1126–27 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also
Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306, 1317–18
(Fed. Cir. 2019). Conclusory allegations, Simio, LLC v.
FlexSim Software Prod., Inc., 983 F.3d 1353, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2020), or those “wholly divorced” from the claims or the
specification, Cellspin, 927 F.3d at 1317, cannot defeat a
motion to dismiss. And a patentee that emphasizes a
claim’s use of certain technology, for example, a general-
purpose computer, fails at step two when the intrinsic rec-
ord establishes that the technology is conventional or well-
known in the art. See, e.g., Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Zillow
Grp., Inc., 50 F.4th 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
Here, the district court observed that AI Visualize
made no arguments regarding additional allegations in the
amended complaint, nor presented any assertions that the
construction of certain claim terms was relevant to the Al-
ice inquiry. Decision, 610 F. Supp. 3d at 644. Based on its
review of the intrinsic record and the allegations in the
complaint, the district court ultimately concluded that each
group of asserted claims involved nothing more than the
abstract idea itself or conventional computer functions or
components. Id. at 647–49. For example, for both group 2
and 3 claims, the district court determined the alleged in-
ventive concepts in the claims were no more than the ab-
stract ideas themselves. Id. at 648–49. It determined that
nothing in the claim limitations transformed the abstract
nature of the claims into patent-eligible subject matter. Id.
at 647–49. We agree.
Case: 22-2109 Document: 61 Page: 14 Filed: 04/04/2024
14 AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
AI Visualize argues that the creation of virtual views
sufficiently transforms the claims into patent-eligible sub-
ject matter. See, e.g., Appellant Br. 43–45; Reply Br. 26.
But as we noted above, the claimed step of creating a vir-
tual view is itself an abstract idea. See Hawk, 60 F.4th
at 1359. Moreover, the intrinsic record undermines AI Vis-
ualize’s argument by showing that virtual views were
known in the art. ’609 patent, 1:22–25. The shared speci-
fication provides that technology existed at the time of the
invention “to present richer three-dimensional (3D) views
from existing two-dimensional (2D) scans that may lead to
better diagnosis and prognosis.” Id. AI Visualize acknowl-
edged this at oral argument. See, e.g., Oral Arg. 2:40–3:13.
AI Visualize also argues that creation of virtual views
“on demand” or in “real-time” in response to a user request
transforms the claims into something “significantly more”
than the abstract idea. See, e.g., Appellant Br. 43. We are
not persuaded. In Affinity Labs, we found claims involving
a “customized user interface” failed to recite an inventive
concept. Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1271–72. Without a
“concrete application of the abstract idea of delivering con-
tent,” the claims were not transformed into patent-eligible
subject matter at Alice step two. Id. at 1272. Similarly in
Electric Power Group, the claimed invention purported to
pull information regarding power grid operations from
many sources, process and analyze it, and display relevant
data to a user “in real time”. Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at
1356. Because the claims disclosed only “entirely conven-
tional, generic technology,” they remained patent-ineligi-
ble at Alice step two. Id. As in Affinity Labs and Electric
Power, AI Visualize’s amended complaint has not made
sufficient factual allegations to support that the claims in-
volve unconventional technology or a concrete application
of the abstract idea of virtual view “creation.” AI Visual-
ize’s claim that the “virtual views” are created “on the fly,”
without more, cannot support patent eligibility at Alice
step two.
Case: 22-2109 Document: 61 Page: 15 Filed: 04/04/2024
AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 15
AI Visualize’s amended complaint also failed to ade-
quately allege an inventive concept in the ordered combi-
nation of claim limitations. “[M]erely reciting an abstract
idea performed on a set of generic computer components,
as [the claims] do[] here, would ‘not contain an inventive
concept.’” Two-Way Media, 874 F.3d at 1339 (quoting
BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility
LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). We therefore
agree with the district court that AI Visualize’s claims are
not saved at Alice step two.
We hold that the asserted claims are patent ineligible
because they are directed to an abstract idea and fail to
transform that abstract idea into patent-eligible subject
matter.
CONCLUSION
We have considered AI Visualize’s other arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the above reasons, we
hold that the asserted claims are directed to patent-ineligi-
ble subject matter. We thus affirm the district court’s dis-
missal under Rule 12(b)(6) based on subject matter
ineligibility under § 101.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.