Case: 22-1397 Document: 35 Page: 1 Filed: 08/30/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
USC IP PARTNERSHIP, L.P.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
META PLATFORMS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2022-1397
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas in No. 6:20-cv-00555-ADA, Judge
Alan D. Albright.
______________________
Decided: August 30, 2023
______________________
TODD ERIC LANDIS, Williams Simons & Landis PLLC,
Dallas, TX, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also repre-
sented by MICHAEL SIMONS, FRED WILLIAMS, Austin, TX;
JOHN WITTENZELLNER, Philadelphia, PA.
HEIDI LYN KEEFE, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued
for defendant-appellee. Also represented by MARK R.
WEINSTEIN; PHILLIP EDWARD MORTON, Washington, DC.
______________________
Case: 22-1397 Document: 35 Page: 2 Filed: 08/30/2023
2 USC IP PARTNERSHIP, L.P. v. META PLATFORMS, INC.
Before NEWMAN, REYNA, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit
Judges.
NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.
USC IP Partnership, L.P. (“USC”) is the owner of
United States Patent No. 8,645,300 (“the ’300 patent”), en-
titled “System and Method for Intent Data Processing.”
The patent relates to a method for predicting which
webpages to recommend to a web visitor based on infer-
ences of the visitor’s “intent.”
USC brought suit for infringement against Facebook,
Inc., succeeded by Meta Platforms, Inc. (collectively,
“Meta”) in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas, asserting that the feature “News Feed”
infringes claims 1–17 of the ’300 patent. Meta moved for
summary judgment of invalidity of all the asserted claims
on the ground that they are ineligible for patenting, under
35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court granted summary judg-
ment that claims 1–17 are invalid under § 101. 1 We affirm
the district court’s judgment, for the decision conforms
with precedent interpreting and applying § 101.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Validity under
35 U.S.C. § 101 is a question of law, and
receives de novo review. Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
881 F.3d
1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Foundational questions con-
cerning § 101, such as “whether a claim element or combi-
nation of elements is well-understood, routine and
conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field,” are
questions of fact, and a district court’s findings thereon are
reviewed for clear error. Id. at 1368.
1 USC IP P’ship, L.P. v. Facebook, Inc.,
576 F. Supp.
3d 446 (W.D. Tex. 2021) (“Dist. Ct. Order”).
Case: 22-1397 Document: 35 Page: 3 Filed: 08/30/2023
USC IP PARTNERSHIP, L.P. v. META PLATFORMS, INC. 3
We review the grant of summary judgment under the
law of the regional circuit, here the Fifth Circuit. See En-
fish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
822 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir.
2016). Summary judgment is appropriate when “the mo-
vant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any ma-
terial fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Warren v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n,
932 F.3d
378, 382 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). The
Fifth Circuit gives de novo review to the grant of summary
judgment. E.g., Tiblier v. Dlabal,
743 F.3d 1004, 1007 (5th
Cir. 2014).
DISCUSSION
Patent claims must be directed to patent-eligible sub-
ject matter. Section 101 of Title 35 provides:
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.
Abstract ideas are not eligible for patenting, for abstract
ideas are part of the “basic tools of scientific and technolog-
ical work.” Gottschalk v. Benson,
409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972); see
also Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
573 U.S. 208,
217 (2014). The courts have attempted to clarify the
boundary between the unpatentable idea and the patent-
eligible application of the idea. See Mayo Collaborative
Servs. v. Prometheus Lab’ys, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66, 71–72 (2012)
(recognizing that on the one hand “monopolization of [basic
tools of scientific and technological work] through the grant
of a patent might tend to impede innovation” but on the
other hand “too broad an interpretation of this exclusion-
ary principle could eviscerate patent law”).
In Alice, the Supreme Court proposed a two-step ana-
lytical process. The first step is to determine whether the
patent claim is directed to an ineligible category such as an
Case: 22-1397 Document: 35 Page: 4 Filed: 08/30/2023
4 USC IP PARTNERSHIP, L.P. v. META PLATFORMS, INC.
abstract idea, and if so, the second step is to determine
whether there is “an inventive concept . . . sufficient to en-
sure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly
more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.” Al-
ice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (internal quotation marks, cita-
tions, and alteration omitted). Here, the district court
applied this framework, and granted summary judgment
of invalidity of all claims.
The ’300 patent claims a method for determining the
intent of a visitor to a webpage and using that intent to
select and recommend webpages to the visitor. Claim 1
was deemed representative:
1. A method for predicting an intent of a visitor to
a webpage, the method comprising:
receiving into an intent engine at least one
input parameter from a web browser dis-
playing the webpage;
processing the at least one input parameter
in the intent engine to determine at least
one inferred intent;
providing the at least one inferred intent to
the web browser to cause the at least one
inferred intent to be displayed on the
webpage;
prompting the visitor to confirm the visi-
tor’s intent;
receiving a confirmed intent into the intent
engine;
processing the confirmed intent in the in-
tent engine to determine at least one rec-
ommended webpage that matches the
confirmed intent, the at least one recom-
mended webpage selected from a plurality
of webpages within a defined namespace;
Case: 22-1397 Document: 35 Page: 5 Filed: 08/30/2023
USC IP PARTNERSHIP, L.P. v. META PLATFORMS, INC. 5
causing the webpage in the web browser to
display at least one link to the at least one
recommended webpage;
prompting the visitor to rank the webpage
for the inferred intent;
receiving a rank from the web browser; and
storing a datapoint comprising an identity
of the webpage, the inferred intent and the
received rank.
The parties agree that the term “intent,” as used in the
’300 patent, means “a unique purpose or usage of the web-
site,” and that “intent engine” means “a software compo-
nent for collecting and analyzing intent data from visitors.”
USC Br. 1–2; Meta Br. 4, 5 n.2. The ’300 patent explains
that website navigation can be enhanced “by recording a
visitor’s intent and recording page rankings that indicate
how well the pages of a website match the visitor’s intent.”
’300 patent at Abstract. The patent further explains that
visitor intent can be inferred from historical intent data,
the Uniform Resource Locator, the user’s visits, and op-
tional user intent confirmation. Id.
The district court applied the Alice two-step analysis.
At Alice step one, the district court found that the ’300 pa-
tent claims “are directed to the abstract idea of ‘collecting,
analyzing and using intent data,’” drawing analogy to the
claims invalidated in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom
S.A.,
830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Dist. Ct. Order at 456.
At Alice step two, the district court found that the ’300 pa-
tent claims do not “recite any elements, when considered
individually or ‘as an ordered combination,’ [that] contain
anything ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea itself.”
Id. at 456–57.
The district court did not accept USC’s position that the
intent engine serves a role that is not conventional, ge-
neric, or well-known. The district court held that the intent
Case: 22-1397 Document: 35 Page: 6 Filed: 08/30/2023
6 USC IP PARTNERSHIP, L.P. v. META PLATFORMS, INC.
engine “is a purely functional ‘black box’ implemented us-
ing standard cloud platforms from well-known vendors.”
Dist. Ct. Order at 457. The district court described USC’s
expert’s testimony as making a “conclusory assertion that
the claims present a ‘unique and novel way of delivering
webpages to consumers that was not previously demon-
strated in the prior art,’” finding that this testimony was
not “backed by any concrete facts from the specification or
the prior art.”
Id. The district court concluded that the
claims are unpatentable.
The district court’s analysis and conclusion conform to
precedent. The claimed concept of collecting and using in-
tent data is not a technical solution to a technical problem,
unlike the concept claimed in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Ho-
tels.com, L.P.,
773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), on which
USC relies. Although USC argues that DDR supports eli-
gibility of USC’s invention, in DDR the claimed method cre-
ated a technical way for “a website visitor, in a sense, to be
in two places at the same time,” overcoming “a problem
specifically arising in the realm of computer networks” and
“necessarily rooted in computer technology.”
Id. at 1248,
1257. The district court correctly explained that the claims
herein are not directed to improvements in computer func-
tionality, for the “claims only recite high-level functional
language” such as “processing the confirmed intent,” with
no limitation as to “how ‘processing’ steps are performed.”
Dist. Ct. Order at 455–56.
We agree with the district court that the idea of using
computers to predict the intent of visitors is insufficient to
render the idea non-abstract. See Univ. of Fla. Rsch.
Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
916 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed.
Cir. 2019) (a process of collecting, analyzing, and manipu-
lating data on a computer “is a quintessential ‘do it on a
computer’” claim and an ineligible abstract idea). The dis-
trict court correctly found that nothing recited in the ’300
patent claims, despite the references to web browsers and
webpages, affects the functionality of the computer itself.
Case: 22-1397 Document: 35 Page: 7 Filed: 08/30/2023
USC IP PARTNERSHIP, L.P. v. META PLATFORMS, INC. 7
See Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp.,
951
F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“We have also held that
improving a user’s experience while using a computer ap-
plication is not, without more, sufficient to render the
claims directed to an improvement in computer functional-
ity.”).
Turning to Alice step two, the district court correctly
found that the claims do not contain “significantly more” to
remove the claims from generality and abstraction. Dist.
Ct. Order at 456–57. The district court also correctly ob-
served that “‘web pages,’ ‘web browsers’ and ‘databases’ . . .
were well known in the prior art,” and “[n]othing in the
claims, understood in light of the specification, requires an-
ything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer,
network, and display technology for gathering, sending,
and presenting the desired information.”
Id. at 457 (quot-
ing Electric Power,
830 F.3d at 1355).
The district court held that other claim elements, in-
cluding the “intent tool,” “ranking tool,” and “widget,” also
“do not provide any inventive concept because [they are]
standard web browser functionalit[ies].”
Id. Although USC
argues that “the intent ranking formula” in the ’300 patent
specification provides sufficient substance for the operation
of the “intent engine,” we agree with the district court that
the intent engine is only “a purely functional ‘black box,’”
Dist. Ct. Order at 457, for the claims are not directed to the
use of this formula nor do they cover the formula itself, and
the specification states that skilled artisans would know
“many standard formulas” that would be effective. ’300 pa-
tent col. 10 ll. 25–27.
The district court found no genuine dispute of material
fact, and that a factual dispute did not arise from the USC
expert witness’ “conclusory assertion that the claims pre-
sent a ‘unique and novel way of delivering webpages to con-
sumers that was not previously demonstrated in the prior
art.’” Dist. Ct. Order at 457 (quoting USC expert Dr.
Case: 22-1397 Document: 35 Page: 8 Filed: 08/30/2023
8 USC IP PARTNERSHIP, L.P. v. META PLATFORMS, INC.
Jennifer Golbeck’s Rebuttal Report ¶ 379). We agree, for
conclusory expert opinion does not present a genuine fac-
tual dispute to prevent summary judgment. See Jones v.
United States,
936 F.3d 318, 323 (5th Cir. 2019) (An expert
affidavit with “conclusory . . . and unsubstantiated asser-
tions cannot defeat summary judgment.” (internal quota-
tion marks omitted)); Viterbo v. Dow Chem. Co.,
826 F.2d
420, 424 (5th Cir. 1987) (“Without more than credentials
and a subjective opinion, an expert’s testimony [offered to
defeat a motion for summary judgment] that ‘it is so’ is not
admissible.”).
We have considered USC’s remaining arguments and
deem them unpersuasive. The district court’s analysis and
decision conform to law and precedent. Thus we affirm the
ruling that claims 1–17 of the ’300 patent are invalid.
AFFIRMED
