Bsg Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

______________________

BSG TECH LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

BUYSEASONS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

RAKUTEN COMMERCE, LLC,

Defendant

______________________

2017-1980

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Texas in Nos. 2:16-cv-00529-RWS,

2:16-cv-00530-RWS, Judge Robert Schroeder, III.

______________________

Decided: August 15, 2018

______________________

DAVID R. BENNETT, Direction IP Law, Chicago, IL,

argued for plaintiff-appellant.

RICARDO BONILLA, Fish & Richardson PC, Dallas, TX,

argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by DAVID

BRANDON CONRAD, NEIL J. MCNABNAY.

______________________

Before REYNA, WALLACH, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

2 BSG TECH LLC v. BUYSEASONS, INC.

HUGHES, Circuit Judge.

BSG Tech LLC sued BuySeasons, Inc. for infringe-

ment of several patents related to systems and methods

for indexing information stored in wide access databases.

BuySeasons sought dismissal of the suit based on its

contention that none of the asserted patent claims were

patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court

ultimately agreed with BuySeasons and held all asserted

claims invalid as ineligible under § 101. We agree with

the district court that the asserted claims are ineligible

and, thus, affirm.

I

All three of BSG Tech’s asserted patents, U.S. Patent

Nos. 6,035,294, 6,243,699, and 6,195,652, have substan-

tially overlapping specifications and are directed to a

“self-evolving generic index” for organizing information

stored in a database. ’294 patent col. 3 ll. 24–25. This

indexing software organizes information about various

items using classifications, parameters, and values. Id. at

col. 4 ll. 28–42, col. 6 ll. 38–61. For example, information

about a car could be organized as a series of classifica-

tions, such as a first “Automobile” classification, a second

“Used Vehicle” classification, and a third “Sports Utility

Vehicle” classification. Id. at col. 4 ll. 31–34. Alternative-

ly, items could be described using parameters and values.

A parameter is a set of qualities that an item could pos-

sess, while a value is the specific quality that the item

possesses. For instance, items in the database could be

classified using the “color” parameter, while each item in

the database will have a specific color value like “red” or

“blue.” Id. at col. 3 ll. 30–45.

Prior art indices also organized information using

classifications, parameters, and values. According to the

patents’ specifications, prior “specialty indices” organized

information about specific types of products or services.

For example, a real estate specialty index could use

BSG TECH LLC v. BUYSEASONS, INC. 3

property classifications like commercial or residential;

organize properties using parameters like location or

square footage; and store data corresponding to the values

of those parameters. Id. at col. 1 ll. 49–57. Database

users could more finely control their searches for particu-

lar data entries by using parameters and values to limit

search results. Id. at col. 2 ll. 60–62. The specifications

also describe “hierarchical indices” that sorted infor-

mation about products and services by tiers of increasing-

ly narrow classifications. Id. at col. 2 ll. 30–42. Using

this type of index, a user searching for the geographical

location of a service could find services in Los Angeles by

continuously narrowing from broader categories like

North America, United States, California, and Southern

California. Id. at col. 2 ll. 39–42.

BSG Tech alleges that these prior art indices suffered

from several shortcomings. Specialty indices enabled

refined searching through use of parameter combinations,

but the parameters used to describe one item were often

inapplicable to other items. Id. at col. 1 ll. 60–67. For

example, parameters that helpfully differentiate real

estate properties, like square footage, would be useless for

categorizing cars. Id. at col. 1 ll. 53–67. As a result, these

specialty indices could not handle information about wide

ranges of products and services. Id. While hierarchical

indices could organize information about wide ranges of

products and services by sorting them into distinct cate-

gories, these indices did not allow users “to select small

subsets of records, and to sort the selected records, based

upon parameters.” Id. at col. 2 ll. 30–48.

The patents teach that the “self-evolving” aspect of

the claimed invention addresses these shortcomings by

enabling users to “add new parameters for use in describ-

ing items.” Id. at col. 3 ll. 26–27. Although users are free

to add any new parameter to the index, the claimed

invention seeks to guide user inputs to maintain con-

sistency in how different users describe items. To guide

4 BSG TECH LLC v. BUYSEASONS, INC.

users, the system provides them with information about

parameters and values that previous users chose when

describing similar items. Id. at col. 5 ll. 21–25. For

instance, a user inputting information about a car could

be presented with historical usage information showing

that prior users commonly described car items using year,

model, and price parameters. The usage information

would include information about the relative frequency at

which various parameters or values were used. Id. at

col. 5 ll. 25–30.

The claims at issue are directed toward systems and

methods of indexing that combine some or all of these

features. In the Eastern District of Texas, BSG Tech sued

BuySeasons for infringement of the ’699, ’294, and ’652

patents. BSG Tech asserted four claims from the ’699

patent. Claim 1 recites:

A method of indexing and retrieving data being

posted by a plurality of users to a wide area net-

work, comprising:

providing the users with a mechanism for posting

the data as parametized items;

providing the users with listings of previously

used parameters and previously used values for

use in posting the data;

providing the users with summary comparison

usage information corresponding to the previously

used parameters and values for use in posting the

data; and

providing subsequent users with the listings of

previously used parameters and values, and cor-

responding summary comparison usage infor-

mation for use in searching the network for an

item of interest.

BSG TECH LLC v. BUYSEASONS, INC. 5

’699 patent col. 10 l. 64–col. 11 l. 10. Claims 2, 3, and 4

depend from claim 1 and further require, respectively, the

user to add a new parameter, the user to add a new value,

and providing the user with a classification system for use

in posting data. Id. at col. 11 l. 11–col. 12 l. 4.

BSG Tech also asserted claims 10 and 11 of the ’294

patent. Claim 10 recites:

A method of indexing an item on a database, com-

prising:

providing the database with a structure having a

plurality of item classifications, parameters, and

values, wherein individual parameters are inde-

pendently related to individual item classifica-

tions, and individual values are independently

related to individual parameters;

guiding the user in selecting a specific item classi-

fication for the item from the plurality of item

classifications;

storing the item on the database as a plurality of

user-selected item classification/parameter value

combinations; and

guiding the user in selecting at least one of (a) the

parameters of the combinations by displaying rel-

ative historical usage information for a plurality

of parameters previously used by other users, and

(b) the values of the combinations by displaying

relative historical usage information for a plurali-

ty of values previously used by other users.

’294 patent col. 11 ll. 38–56. Claim 11 depends from claim

10 and further requires guiding the user by displaying

relative historical usage information about previously

used parameters and values with respect to a specific

item classification. Id. at col. 11 l. 57–col. 12 l. 8.

6 BSG TECH LLC v. BUYSEASONS, INC.

Last, BSG Tech asserted claim 9 of the ’652 patent.

Although similar to the other asserted claims, claim 9

covers a database system and recites a further limitation

requiring that “end users can add additional parameters

without modifying the predefined structure of the data-

base.” ’652 patent col. 18 ll. 33–45.

BuySeasons moved to dismiss for failure to state a

claim, arguing that all the asserted claims are drawn to

patent-ineligible subject matter. After converting

BuySeasons’s motion to dismiss into a motion for sum-

mary judgment and accepting BSG Tech’s proposed claim

constructions for purposes of the motion, the district court

granted BuySeasons’s motion. The district court conclud-

ed that the asserted claims “are directed to the abstract

idea of considering historical usage information while

inputting data” and lack an inventive concept sufficient to

transform them into patent-eligible subject matter.

J.A. 6.

BSG Tech appeals. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

II

We review a grant of summary judgment under the

law of the regional circuit. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft

Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Fifth

Circuit reviews grants of summary judgment de novo.

Triple Tee Golf, Inc. v. Nike, Inc., 485 F.3d 253, 261 (5th

Cir. 2007). “Summary judgment is appropriate when the

pleadings, affidavits, and other summary judgment

evidence show that no genuine issue of material fact

exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law.” Id.

The only issue in this appeal is whether the asserted

claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, which we

review de novo. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1334.

BSG TECH LLC v. BUYSEASONS, INC. 7

Section 101 provides that a patent may be obtained

for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture,

or composition of matter, or any new and useful improve-

ment thereof.” This provision contains an implicit excep-

tion that “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and

abstract ideas are not patentable.” Ass’n for Molecular

Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589

(2013) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus

Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012)). We determine wheth-

er a claim covers ineligible subject matter under § 101

through a two-step test. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,

134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). At step one, we “determine

whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those

patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If so, we consider at step

two whether the elements of each claim, both individually

and as an ordered combination, “‘transform the nature of

the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting

Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78).

A

The Supreme Court has held that “fundamental . . .

practice[s] long prevalent in our system of commerce” are

abstract ideas. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356. Similarly, we

view well-established “methods of organizing human

activity” as abstract. In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent

Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016). If a claimed

invention only performs an abstract idea on a generic

computer, the invention is directed to an abstract idea at

step one. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355–57. Software, howev-

er, “can make non-abstract improvements to computer

technology just as hardware improvements can.” Enfish,

822 F.3d at 1335. We must, therefore, consider whether

the “focus of the claims” is on a “specific asserted im-

provement in computer capabilities . . . , or, instead, on a

process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which

computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Id. at 1336.

8 BSG TECH LLC v. BUYSEASONS, INC.

We agree with the district court that the asserted

claims are directed to the abstract idea of considering

historical usage information while inputting data. This is

clearest for the four asserted claims of the ’699 patent.

Claim 1 of the ’699 patent recites a method of indexing

wherein a user adds data to a database using “a mecha-

nism for posting the data as parametized items” after

receiving “summary comparison usage information” about

parameters and values selected by prior users. ’699

patent col. 10 l. 64–col. 11 l. 10. BSG Tech does not

purport to have invented database structures that allow

database users to input item data as a series of parame-

ters and values. The ’699 specification makes clear that

such databases predate the claimed invention. Id. at col.

1 l. 21–col. 3 l. 23, col. 10 ll. 42–46. Rather, the claim’s

“focus” is guiding database users by presenting summary

comparison information to users before they input data.

Id. at col. 3 ll. 36–51. This is not a method “necessarily

rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a

problem specifically arising in the realm of” wide access

databases. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773

F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014). It amounts to having

users consider previous item descriptions before they

describe items to achieve more consistent item descrip-

tions. Whether labeled as a fundamental, long-prevalent

practice or a well-established method of organizing activi-

ty, this qualifies as an abstract idea. See also Cyber-

Source Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366,

1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that a claim whose

“steps can be performed in the human mind, or by a

human using a pen and paper” is directed to an “un-

patentable mental process[]”).

BSG Tech makes three arguments for why the ’699

patent claims are not directed to this abstract idea, none

of which are persuasive. First, BSG Tech argues that the

’699 patent claims require a specific database structure.

The “mechanism for posting the data as parametized

BSG TECH LLC v. BUYSEASONS, INC. 9

items” limitation requires a database that allows users to

input data and can store user-input data as classifica-

tions, parameters, and values. Some databases do not

allow user input or cannot store information in this way.

See ’699 patent col. 1 ll. 22–34. It follows, BSG Tech

argues, that the claims cannot be directed to abstract

ideas because their limitations are not satisfied by a

generic computer.

We have consistently held, however, that claims are

not saved from abstraction merely because they recite

components more specific than a generic computer. See

TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d at 612–13 (holding claims were

directed to an abstract idea despite the claims’ recitation

of telephone units and servers); Content Extraction &

Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776

F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding claims were

directed to an abstract idea despite the claims’ recitation

of a scanner). In Content Extraction, we observed that a

limitation requiring part of the claimed method to be

performed on a scanner merely limited the abstract idea

to a particular technological environment. 776 F.3d at

1348. Similarly, in TLI Communications, the limitations

requiring performance of the claimed method on a tele-

phone unit and server “merely provide[d] a generic envi-

ronment in which to carry out the abstract idea.” 823

F.3d at 611. Here, the recited database structure similar-

ly provides a generic environment in which the claimed

method is performed. The ’699 specification makes clear

that databases allowing users to post parametized items

were commonly used at the time of invention. ’699 patent

col. 1 l. 21–col. 3 l. 23. Thus, the recitation of a database

structure slightly more detailed than a generic database

does not save the asserted claims at step one.

Second, BSG Tech argues that the ’699 patent claims

are not directed to an abstract idea because they require

users to specifically consider “summary comparison usage

information” rather than any type of historical usage

10 BSG TECH LLC v. BUYSEASONS, INC.

information. This argument is unpersuasive. The ’699

patent uses the term “summary comparison usage infor-

mation” very broadly. Its specification states “‘usage’ is

employed herein in its broadest possible sense to include

information relating to occurrence, absolute or relative

frequency, or any other data which indicates the extent of

past usage with respect to the various choices.” Id. at

col. 5 ll. 32–36. Therefore, “summary comparison usage

information” covers any information concerning the

relative frequency at which different parameters and

values have been used. This includes side-by-side dis-

plays of the absolute number of uses for different parame-

ters or values. Id. at col. 5 ll. 58–62. In effect, any

historical information about parameter or value usage

qualifies as “summary comparison usage information” if it

is presented alongside information about one or more

other parameters or values.

Moreover, regardless of how narrow “summary com-

parison usage information” may be relative to the catego-

ry of “historical usage information,” this does not affect

whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea at

Alice’s step one. In BSG Tech’s view, a claim is not di-

rected to an abstract idea so long as it recites limitations

that render it narrower than that abstract idea. While

“we must be careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims”

in determining whether they are directed to an abstract

idea, TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d at 611, we have never

suggested that such minimal narrowing, by itself, satis-

fies Alice’s test. In Content Extraction, for example, we

determined that the claimed methods were directed, in

part, to the abstract idea of “collecting data,” even though

the claims specifically concerned data from “hard copy

documents” collected by an “automated digitizing unit.”

776 F.3d at 1345, 1347. Similarly, in Two-Way Media

Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d

1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017), we determined that a claimed

method was directed, in part, to the abstract idea of

BSG TECH LLC v. BUYSEASONS, INC. 11

“sending information,” even though the claim specifically

concerned “audio/and or visual information” transmitted

over a communications network. Id. at 1334, 1337–38.

These cases reflect that a claim is not patent eligible

merely because it applies an abstract idea in a narrow

way. For an application of an abstract idea to satisfy step

one, the claim’s focus must be something other than the

abstract idea itself. 1

Third, BSG Tech insists that its claims focus on a

non-abstract improvement in database functionality. It

argues that the claimed invention improves the quality of

information added to the database and the organization of

information in the database. These improvements result

from guiding users’ selection of classifications, parame-

ters, and values through displays of summary comparison

usage information. The historical information “encour-

ages users to be consistent in selecting parameters for

both entering and searching data.” ’699 patent col. 3

ll. 43–45. As a result, the claimed invention “allows users

to quickly and efficiently access hundreds of thousands or

even millions of records, and still find only those few

records that are relevant.” Id. at col. 10 ll. 46–48.

These benefits, however, are not improvements to

database functionality. Instead, they are benefits that

1 For this reason, whether dependent claims 2–4 of

the ’699 patent are directed to an abstract idea at step one

depends upon whether independent claim 1 is directed to

an abstract idea. The dependent claims’ additional limi-

tations require the user to add certain types of infor-

mation to the database or require providing the user with

a classification system to post data. ’699 patent col. 11 l.

11–col. 12 l. 4. Although these claims cover a narrower

range of data input than claim 1, the claims’ focus re-

mains on the abstract idea of considering historical usage

information while inputting data.

12 BSG TECH LLC v. BUYSEASONS, INC.

flow from performing an abstract idea in conjunction with

a well-known database structure. A review of our prior

cases identifying claims directed to non-abstract im-

provements in computer functionality makes this clear.

In Enfish, we determined that claims related to a data-

base structure were not abstract because their focus

included a new “self-referential table [that] functions

differently than conventional database structures.” 822

F.3d at 1337. The self-referential table enabled pro-

grammers to construct databases in new ways that re-

quired less modeling and configuring of various tables

prior to launch. Id. at 1333. We expressly distinguished

this kind of improvement in computer functionality from

the performance of “economic or other tasks for which a

computer is used in its ordinary capacity.” Id. at 1336.

Similarly, in Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867

F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017), we determined that the claims

at issue were directed to an “improved memory system”

that configured operational characteristics of a computer’s

cache memory based on the type of processor connected to

the memory system. Id. at 1261. Depending on the

processor type, the invention’s memory caches could

adjust their function, which allowed the claimed invention

to accommodate different types of processors without

compromising performance. Id. at 1256–57, 1259. Both

Enfish and Visual Memory concerned claims that focused

on improved ways in which systems store and access data.

Here, the focus of BSG Tech’s claims is unrelated to

how databases function. Under the claimed methods,

information inputted by users into a database is stored

and organized in the same manner as information in-

putted into conventional databases capable of indexing

data as classifications, parameters, and values. The

claims do not recite any improvement to the way in which

such databases store or organize information analogous to

the self-referential table in Enfish or the adaptable

memory caches in Visual Memory. While the presentation

BSG TECH LLC v. BUYSEASONS, INC. 13

of summary comparison usage information to users im-

proves the quality of the information added to the data-

base, an improvement to the information stored by a

database is not equivalent to an improvement in the

database’s functionality. BSG Tech’s claimed invention

results in better user input, but the database serves in its

“ordinary capacity” of storing the resulting information.

Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336. Thus, at step one, the ’699

patent claims are directed to the abstract idea of having

users consider historical usage information while input-

ting data.

The foregoing analysis applies with equal force to

claims 10 and 11 of the ’294 patent. These claims also

recite methods of indexing items in a database. For

purposes of Alice step one, the ’294 patent claims’ recita-

tion of a “database with a structure having a plurality of

item classifications, parameters, and values” that can

store “user-selected item classification/parameter value

combinations,” ’294 patent col. 11 ll. 40–50, is equivalent

to the ’699 patent claims’ recitation of “a mechanism for

posting the data as parametized items.” This convention-

al database structure similarly serves as a generic envi-

ronment in which an abstract idea is carried out. See TLI

Commc’ns, 823 F.3d at 611. Additionally, the step of the

’294 patent claims that requires guiding users by display-

ing “relative historical usage information,” ’294 patent col.

11 ll. 50–56, is not materially different than the ’699

patent’s requirement that users be guided with “summary

comparison usage information.” BSG Tech does not point

to any other features of the ’294 patent claims that could

support their eligibility at step one.

Finally, BSG Tech makes several arguments that are

specific to claim 9 of the ’652 patent. Unlike the method

claims of the ’699 and ’294 patents, claim 9 of the ’652

patent claims a database system. Nonetheless, it is

similarly directed to the same abstract idea of considering

historical usage information while inputting data. Like

14 BSG TECH LLC v. BUYSEASONS, INC.

the ’294 patent claims, it requires a database structure

that is capable of storing information about items as

combinations of classifications, parameters, and values.

’652 patent col. 18 ll. 33–45. And like the ’699 patent

claims, it requires guiding users by displaying “summary

comparison usage information.” Id. Claim 9’s only dis-

tinguishing feature is a limitation requiring that database

users “can add additional parameters without modifying

the predefined structure of the database.” Id.

BSG Tech argues that this latter limitation provides

an independent reason that claim 9 of the ’652 patent is

not directed to an abstract idea. According to BSG Tech,

this limitation further differentiates the claimed inven-

tion from generic databases because it recites a database

that is not structurally modified when users add new

parameters. As discussed previously, however, merely

reciting components more specific than a generic comput-

er does not preclude a claim from being directed to an

abstract idea. See TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d at 611.

To the extent that BSG Tech argues that this limita-

tion constitutes an improvement in computer functionali-

ty similar to the self-referential table in Enfish, there is

no support for such an assertion. The ’652 patent specifi-

cation says nothing about how to construct a database

structure that is not modified by the addition of new

parameters. This suggests that this feature of the

claimed system is not claim 9’s focus. Relatedly, nothing

in the specification suggests that conventional databases

required structural modifications to add new parameters,

or explains how maintaining the same structure would

improve database functionality relative to structures that

change with the addition of new parameters.

Further, BSG Tech argues that claim 9 covers an im-

proved database system with higher quality information

and better information organization. But BSG Tech

alleges that the ’699 and ’294 patent claims achieve the

BSG TECH LLC v. BUYSEASONS, INC. 15

same benefits. The ’699 and ’294 patent claims do not

require that additional parameters can be added to a

database without modifying its structure. Accordingly,

claim 9’s benefits are similarly attributable to users

considering historical usage information while inputting

data. In short, we conclude that claim 9’s limitation that

users can add additional parameters without modifying

the predefined structure of the database does not consti-

tute an improvement in database functionality.

B

At step two, if claims are directed to a patent-

ineligible concept, “we consider 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.”

Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78–

79). These transformative elements must supply an

“inventive concept” that ensures the patent amounts to

“significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible

concept] itself.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73)

(alteration in original). Claim limitations that recite

“conventional, routine and well understood applications in

the art” are insufficient to “supply an inventive concept.”

Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371,

1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

Whether a combination of claim limitations supplies

an inventive concept that renders a claim “significantly

more” than an abstract idea to which it is directed is a

question of law. Underlying factual determinations may

inform this legal determination. See Berkheimer v. HP

Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018). We have

recently held that whether a claim limitation or combina-

tion of limitations is well-understood, routine, and con-

ventional is a factual question. Id. Accordingly, in cases

where the only issue at step two is whether claim limita-

tions are well-understood, routine, and conventional, a

16 BSG TECH LLC v. BUYSEASONS, INC.

genuine dispute over that issue will preclude summary

judgment that a claim is ineligible under § 101. This was

the case for some of the claims at issue in Berkheimer. In

that case, certain claims recited non-abstract features of a

digital asset management system that the specification

described as unconventional improvements over conven-

tional systems. Id. at 1370. While the Berkheimer de-

fendant argued those features were conventional, there

was a genuine issue of material fact in that case. Id.

Under those circumstances, summary judgment was

inappropriate. Id.

This case is different. BSG Tech points to the ’699,

’294, and ’652 patent specifications to argue that the

asserted claims recite unconventional features that pro-

vide benefits over conventional prior art databases. But

the relevant inquiry is not whether the claimed invention

as a whole is unconventional or non-routine. At step two,

we “search for an ‘inventive concept’ . . . that is ‘sufficient

to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to signifi-

cantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept]

itself.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (internal quotation marks

omitted) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73). After identi-

fying an ineligible concept at step one, we ask at step two

“[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?” Mayo, 566

U.S. at 78.

It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s

use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot

supply the inventive concept that renders the invention

“significantly more” than that ineligible concept. In Alice,

the Supreme Court held that claims directed to a comput-

er-implemented scheme for mitigating settlement risks

claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 134 S. Ct. at

2352, 2355–56. Some of the claims at issue covered

computer systems configured to mitigate risks through

various financial transactions. Id. After determining

that those claims were directed to the abstract idea of

intermediated settlement, the Court considered whether

BSG TECH LLC v. BUYSEASONS, INC. 17

the recitation of a generic computer added “significantly

more” to the claims. Id. at 2357. Critically, the Court did

not consider whether it was well-understood, routine, and

conventional to execute the claimed intermediated set-

tlement method on a generic computer. Instead, the

Court only assessed whether the claim limitations other

than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which

it was directed were well-understood, routine and conven-

tional. Id. at 2359–60.

Our precedent has consistently employed this same

approach. If a claim’s only “inventive concept” is the

application of an abstract idea using conventional and

well-understood techniques, the claim has not been trans-

formed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract

idea. See, e.g., Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1370 (holding

claims lacked an inventive concept because they “amount

to no more than performing the abstract idea of parsing

and comparing data with conventional computer compo-

nents”); Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838

F.3d 1253, 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding a claim lacked

an inventive concept because it “simply recites the use of

generic features . . . as well as routine functions . . . to

implement the underlying idea”); cf. Ariosa, 788 F.3d at

1379–80 (rejecting the argument that a newly discovered

natural phenomenon can supply an inventive concept).

Here, the only alleged unconventional feature of BSG

Tech’s claims is the requirement that users are guided by

summary comparison usage information or relative his-

torical usage information. But this simply restates what

we have already determined is an abstract idea. At Alice

step two, it is irrelevant whether considering historical

usage information while inputting data may have been

non-routine or unconventional as a factual matter. As a

matter of law, narrowing or reformulating an abstract

idea does not add “significantly more” to it. See SAP Am.,

Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, slip op. at 14 (Fed.

Cir. Aug. 2, 2018) (“What is needed is an inventive con-

18 BSG TECH LLC v. BUYSEASONS, INC.

cept in the non-abstract application realm. . . .

[L]imitation of the claims to a particular field of infor-

mation . . . does not move the claims out of the realm of

abstract ideas.”). BSG Tech does not argue that other,

non-abstract features of the claimed inventions, alone or

in combination, are not well-understood, routine and

conventional database structures and activities. Accord-

ingly, the district court did not err in determining that the

asserted claims lack an inventive concept.

BSG Tech’s remaining argument at step two is that

the asserted claims supply an inventive concept because

they require a specific database structure that does not

preempt consideration of historical usage information

while inputting data into other types of databases. This

argument misunderstands the step two inquiry. While

preemption concerns are “the basis for the judicial excep-

tions to patentability . . . , the absence of complete

preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.”

Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1379; see also Intellectual Ventures I

LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir.

2016) (“A narrow claim directed to an abstract idea,

however, is not necessarily patent-eligible . . . .”). Alt-

hough BSG Tech narrowed its claims to specific database

structures, those structures are well-understood and

conventional. Such narrowing does not supply an in-

ventive concept.

III

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court’s

grant of summary judgment that all asserted claims on

appeal are ineligible under § 101.

AFFIRMED