Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC

United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

______________________

DATA ENGINE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

GOOGLE LLC,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2017-1135

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

District of Delaware in No. 1:14-cv-01115-LPS, Chief

Judge Leonard P. Stark.

______________________

Decided: October 9, 2018

______________________

BENJAMIN F. FOSTER, Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos,

Alavi & Mensing PC, Houston, TX, argued for plaintiff-

appellant. Represented by AMIR H. ALAVI, IFTIKAHR

AHMED, ALISA A. LIPSKI.

DARYL JOSEFFER, King & Spalding LLP, Washington,

DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Represented by

AMELIA GRACE YOWELL; JONATHAN K. WALDROP, MARCUS

BARBER, JOHN WALTER DOWNING, DARCY L. JONES, Kaso-

witz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP, Redwood Shores,

CA; DAN L. BAGATELL, Perkins Coie LLP, Hanover, NH.

______________________

2 DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

Before REYNA, BRYSON, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

STOLL, Circuit Judge.

Data Engine Technologies LLC (“DET”) appeals the

district court’s entry of judgment on the pleadings holding

that the asserted claims of DET’s U.S. Patent

Nos. 5,590,259; 5,784,545; 6,282,551; and 5,303,146 are

ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court held

that the asserted claims are directed to abstract ideas and

fail to provide an inventive concept. We conclude that,

with the exception of claim 1 of the ’551 patent, the as-

serted claims of the ’259, ’545, and ’551 patents (“Tab

Patents”) are directed to patent-eligible subject matter.

These claims are not abstract, but rather are directed to a

specific improved method for navigating through complex

three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets. We agree,

however, that the asserted claims of the ’146 patent,

reciting methods for tracking changes to data in spread-

sheets, are directed to the abstract idea of collecting,

recognizing, and storing changed information. After a

searching review, we find nothing in these claims that

provides an inventive concept sufficient to render the

claims patent eligible. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part,

reverse-in-part, and remand.

BACKGROUND

I. The Tab Patents

The Tab Patents are titled “System and Methods for

Improved Spreadsheet Interface With User-Familiar

Objects,” and claim priority to April 8, 1992. 1 The Tab

1 Because the Tab Patents’ specifications are sub-

stantially identical, we refer only to the ’259 patent’s

specification.

DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 3

Patents claim systems and methods for making complex

electronic spreadsheets more accessible by providing

familiar, user-friendly interface objects—specifically,

notebook tabs—to navigate through spreadsheets while

circumventing the arduous process of searching for,

memorizing, and entering complex commands.

The Tab Patents teach that the advent of electronic

spreadsheets offered dramatic improvements in creating,

editing, and using spreadsheets to organize and process

data. Despite such advantages, twenty-five years ago,

electronic spreadsheets were not easy to use. ’259 patent

col. 2 ll. 57–59. Users were required to master complex

commands in order to perform basic operations within a

spreadsheet. Id. at col. 2 ll. 28–29. To find an appropri-

ate command for an operation, users would navigate

through complex menu systems, with the proper com-

mand buried under several menus. Id. at col. 2 ll. 29–32.

“Finding this approach to be unworkable, many users

[would] memorize frequently-needed commands instead.”

Id. at col. 2 ll. 41–42. Because such commands were

arbitrary (e.g., “/Worksheet Global Default Other Interna-

tional”), users could only master a very small fraction of

available commands and features. Id. at col. 2 ll. 40–47,

53–56.

The Tab Patents specifically identify problems with

navigation through prior art three-dimensional or mul-

tipage electronic spreadsheets. The Tab Patents explain

that the complex commands required to manipulate each

additional spread of the three-dimensional spreadsheet

diminished the utility and ease of use of this technology.

The invention claimed in the Tab Patents provided a

solution to this problem. Specifically, the Tab Patents are

directed to and claim a method of implementing a note-

book-tabbed interface, which allows users to easily navi-

gate through three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets.

As shown in Figure 4G of the ’259 patent below, the Tab

4 DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

Patents provide “an electronic spreadsheet system in-

clud[ing] a notebook interface having a plurality of note-

book pages, each of which contains a spread of

information cells, or other desired page type.” Id. at col. 3

ll. 48–52. In contrast to conventional electronic spread-

sheets, the method claimed in the Tab Patents “includes

user-familiar objects, i.e., paradigms of real-world objects

which the user already knows how to use” such as note-

book tabs. Id. at col. 6 ll. 52–58. “In this manner, com-

plexities of the system are hidden under ordinary,

everyday object metaphors,” providing a “highly intuitive

interface—one in which advanced features (e.g., three-

dimensionality) are easily learned.” Id. at col. 6 ll. 58–63.

Figure 2D below shows more closely an individual

spreadsheet page with notebook tabs located along the

bottom edge of the page.

DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 5

In this preferred embodiment, “each page identifier is

in the form of a tab member (e.g., members 261a, 262a,

263a) situated along a bottom edge of the notebook.” Id.

at col. 8 ll. 13–15. Although these tabs are labeled A, B,

and C, etc., they are typically given descriptive names

assigned by the user. Id. at col. 8 ll. 19–23. To move to

different spreadsheet pages, the user selects the corre-

sponding tab for that page. Id. at col. 8 ll. 45–47. Thus,

“instead of finding information by scrolling different parts

of a large spreadsheet, or by invoking multiple windows of

a conventional three-dimensional spreadsheet, the pre-

sent invention allows the user to simply and conveniently

‘flip through’ several pages of the notebook to rapidly

locate information of interest.” Id. at col. 8 ll. 51–57. This

improved interface allows for “rapidly accessing and

processing information on the different pages, including,

for example, displaying a plurality of page identifiers for

selecting individual pages.” Id. at col. 3 ll. 53–56.

Although these spreadsheet interfaces have become

ubiquitous, Quattro Pro, the first commercial embodiment

of the claimed invention, was highly acclaimed as having

revolutionized three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets.

During prosecution, DET submitted contemporaneous

articles showing the state of the art at the time of the

invention and evidencing the significance of the claimed

methods to spreadsheet technology. For example, PC

World, a leading computer magazine, published a front-

page article, “Quattro Pro for Windows: The Ultimate 3-D

Spreadsheet.” J.A. 981. The article reflected the indus-

try’s view that “keeping large, complex worksheet projects

organized, manageable, and reliable ha[d] long been a

major concern for serious spreadsheet users” and that

existing spreadsheets had “data and results hidden all

over the place.” J.A. 982. The article touts the claimed

notebook-tabbed spreadsheet interface as a solution to

that problem, explaining that it “makes developing nifty

applications far easier for the average spreadsheet user,

6 DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

and [that] intelligent command organization makes

navigation efficient.” Id. PC World published another

cover story naming Quattro Pro “The Best of 1992,” again

lauding it as “the first spreadsheet to make three-

dimensional modeling an accessible, useful analytic tool.”

J.A. 1007. The article stated that “[o]ne of the keys to the

product’s success is a notebook metaphor, in which each

worksheet page can be assigned a descriptive name and

users can navigate through the set by clicking on page

tabs.” Id.

Similarly, in 1992, InfoWorld named Quattro Pro the

product of the year for productivity applications. In doing

so, InfoWorld wrote:

We collected all the word processors, spread-

sheets, databases, personal information manag-

ers, and other productivity applications and asked

ourselves a question: “Which of these programs

really changed the way an individual user goes

about handling data? Does any one stand out as a

productivity booster?”

Our answer was Quattro Pro for Windows. The

reason: Borland designed this program from the

ground up and examined how spreadsheet users

would work in a Windows environment. The

notebook metaphor, with pages and tabs for differ-

ent worksheets, simplifies handling large work-

sheets. The “interface builder” lets a user design

custom dialog boxes without extensive macro pro-

gramming. And, of course, Quattro Pro’s graphics

are stellar.

J.A. 1008 (emphasis added). In total, DET submitted

seven articles dated between 1992 and 1993, all touting

the advantages of its use of notebook tabs to improve

navigation through three-dimensional spreadsheets.

See J.A. 981–1010.

DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 7

DET filed suit against Google LLC, asserting claims

1–2, 12–13, 16–17, 19, 24, 46–47, and 51 of the

’259 patent; claims 1–2, 5–7, 10, 13, and 35 of the

’545 patent; and claims 1, 3, 6–7, 10, 12–13, 15, and 18 of

the ’551 patent. The district court considered claim 12 of

the ’259 patent representative of all asserted claims of the

Tab Patents. See Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google Inc.,

211 F. Supp. 3d 669, 677–78 (D. Del. 2016) (“District

Court Op.”). Claim 12 of the ’259 patent recites:

12. In an electronic spreadsheet system for stor-

ing and manipulating information, a computer-

implemented method of representing a three-

dimensional spreadsheet on a screen display, the

method comprising:

displaying on said screen display a first spread-

sheet page from a plurality of spreadsheet pages,

each of said spreadsheet pages comprising an ar-

ray of information cells arranged in row and col-

umn format, at least some of said information

cells storing user-supplied information and formu-

las operative on said user-supplied information,

each of said information cells being uniquely iden-

tified by a spreadsheet page identifier, a column

identifier, and a row identifier;

while displaying said first spreadsheet page, dis-

playing a row of spreadsheet page identifiers

along one side of said first spreadsheet page, each

said spreadsheet page identifier being displayed

as an image of a notebook tab on said screen dis-

play and indicating a single respective spread-

sheet page, wherein at least one spreadsheet page

identifier of said displayed row of spreadsheet

page identifiers comprises at least one user-

settable identifying character;

receiving user input for requesting display of a

second spreadsheet page in response to selection

8 DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

with an input device of a spreadsheet page identi-

fier for said second spreadsheet page;

in response to said receiving user input step, dis-

playing said second spreadsheet page on said

screen display in a manner so as to obscure said

first spreadsheet page from display while continu-

ing to display at least a portion of said row of

spreadsheet page identifiers; and

receiving user input for entering a formula in a

cell on said second spreadsheet page, said formula

including a cell reference to a particular cell on

another of said spreadsheet pages having a par-

ticular spreadsheet page identifier comprising at

least one user-supplied identifying character, said

cell reference comprising said at least one user-

supplied identifying character for said particular

spreadsheet page identifier together with said

column identifier and said row identifier for said

particular cell.

’259 patent col. 26 l. 43–col. 27 l. 17.

II. The ’146 Patent

The ’146 patent is titled “System and Methods for Im-

proved Scenario Management in an Electronic Spread-

sheet.” The ’146 patent is directed to methods that allow

electronic spreadsheet users to track their changes. The

specification teaches that prior art electronic spreadsheets

were not particularly adept at managing “what-if ” scenar-

ios in a given spreadsheet. ’146 patent col. 2 ll. 41–44.

The patent explains that “[s]ince a given spreadsheet

model is routinely created under a set of assumptions

(e.g., level of sales, corporate tax rate, and the like), it is

desirable to test the extremes of one’s assumptions to

ascertain the likely results.” Id. at col. 2 ll. 45–49. Prior

art spreadsheets, however, “provided little or no tools for

creating and managing such a multitude of scenarios.”

DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 9

Id. at col. 2 ll. 51–52. Instead, users had to “resort to

manually creating separate copies of the underlying

model, with the user responsible for tracking any modifi-

cations made in the various copies.” Id. at col. 2 ll. 53–56.

The ’146 patent purports to solve this problem by

providing an electronic spreadsheet system “having a

preferred interface and methods for creating and tracking

various versions or ‘scenarios’ of a data model.” Id. at

col. 2 ll. 61–63. The claimed system “includes tools for

specifying a ‘capture area,’ that is, a specific set of infor-

mation cells to be tracked and an Identify Scenario tool

for automatically determining changes between a cap-

tured parent or baseline model and a new scenario.”

Id. at col. 2 ll. 63–67.

DET alleged infringement of claims 1, 26–28, and 32–

34 of the ’146 patent. The district court considered inde-

pendent claims 1 and 26 representative of all the asserted

claims of the ’146 patent. See District Court Op.,

211 F. Supp. 3d at 680. Claims 1 and 26 recite:

1. In an electronic spreadsheet system for model-

ing user-specified information in a data model

comprising a plurality of information cells, a

method for automatically tracking different ver-

sions of the data model, the method comprising:

(a) specifying a base set of information cells for

the system to track changes;

(b) creating a new version of the data model by

modifying at least one information cell from the

specified base set; and

(c) automatically determining cells of the data

model which have changed by comparing cells in

the new version against corresponding ones in the

base set.

***

10 DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

26. In an electronic spreadsheet system, a method

for storing different versions of a spreadsheet

model, the method comprising:

(a) maintaining a base version of the spreadsheet

model as ordered information on a storage device;

and

(b) for each new version of the spreadsheet model:

(i) determining portions of the new version which

have changed when compared against the base

version, and

(ii) maintaining the new version by storing addi-

tional information for only those portions deter-

mined to have changed.

’146 patent col. 14 ll. 1–13 (emphasis added), col. 16

ll. 7–19.

III. The District Court’s Decision

Google filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), arguing that

the asserted claims of the Tab Patents and the ’146 patent

are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under

§ 101. The district court granted the motion with respect

to the Tab Patents, concluding that representative

claim 12 of the ’259 patent is “directed to the abstract idea

of using notebook-type tabs to label and organize spread-

sheets.” District Court Op., 211 F. Supp. 3d at 678. The

district court also agreed with Google that claim 12 “is

directed to an abstract idea that humans have commonly

performed entirely in their minds, with the aid of colum-

nar pads and writing instruments.” Id. at 679. The

district court held that the remaining limitations of

claim 12 fail to recite an inventive concept. Id.

Similarly, with respect to the ’146 patent, the district

court concluded that the asserted claims are directed to

the abstract idea of “collecting spreadsheet data, recogniz-

DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 11

ing changes to spreadsheet data, and storing information

about the changes,” and more specifically, directed “to

input of information in a (computerized) columnar pad,

recognition of changes in later versions of the inputted

information, and storage of information about the chang-

es.” Id. at 680–81 (emphases omitted). The district court

also held that additional claim limitations directed to

electronic spreadsheets failed to provide an inventive

concept sufficient to confer patent eligibility. Id.

DET appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

DISCUSSION

I

We review the district court’s judgment on the plead-

ings under regional circuit law. Merck & Co. v. Hi-Tech

Pharmacal Co., 482 F.3d 1317, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The

Third Circuit reviews the grant of judgment on the plead-

ings de novo, “accept[ing] all of the allegations in the

pleadings of the party against whom the motion is ad-

dressed as true and draw[ing] all reasonable inferences in

favor of the non-moving party.” Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins.

Co. v. Squires, 667 F.3d 388, 390 (3d Cir. 2012). Patent

eligibility can be determined on the pleadings under

Rule 12(c) when there are no factual allegations that,

when taken as true, prevent resolving the eligibility

question as a matter of law. Cf. Aatrix Software, Inc. v.

Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1125

(Fed. Cir. 2018); Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360,

1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

Section 101 provides that “[w]hoever invents or dis-

covers any new and useful process, machine, manufac-

ture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful

improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor.”

35 U.S.C. § 101. In Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Internation-

al, the Supreme Court articulated a two-step test for

12 DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

examining patent eligibility under § 101. 134 S. Ct. 2347

(2014). “We must first determine whether the claims at

issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” Id.

at 2355. “Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and ab-

stract ideas are not patentable.” Id. at 2354 (quoting

Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.,

569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)). “The ‘abstract ideas’ category

embodies ‘the longstanding rule that ‘[a]n idea of itself is

not patentable.’” Id. at 2355 (alteration in original)

(quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). If

the claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept

under Alice step 1, “the claims satisfy § 101 and we need

not proceed to the second step.” Core Wireless Licensing

S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir.

2018) (citing Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp.,

867 F.3d 1253, 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).

If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible con-

cept, however, we next consider Alice step two. In this

step, we consider “the elements of each claim both indi-

vidually 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 Collaborative Servs. v.

Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78–79 (2012)). This

second step is “a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an

element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to

ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significant-

ly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’”

Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S.

at 72–73).

II

We first address the Tab Patents. Our analysis be-

gins at Alice step one, asking “whether the claims at issue

are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” Id. at 2355.

With the exception of claim 1 of the ’551 patent, we hold

DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 13

that the asserted claims of the Tab Patents are directed to

patent-eligible subject matter.

A

When considered as a whole, and in light of the speci-

fication, representative claim 12 of the ’259 patent is not

directed to an abstract idea. Rather, the claim is directed

to a specific method for navigating through three-

dimensional electronic spreadsheets. The method pro-

vides a specific solution to then-existing technological

problems in computers and prior art electronic spread-

sheets. The specification teaches that prior art computer

spreadsheets were not user friendly. They required users

to “master many complex and arbitrary operations.”

’259 patent col. 2 ll. 28–29. Users had to search through

complex menu systems to find appropriate commands to

execute simple computer tasks, which required users to

memorize frequently needed commands. Id. at col. 2

ll. 29–45. This was burdensome and hindered a user’s

ability to find or access the many commands and features

available in prior art computer spreadsheets, undercut-

ting the effectiveness of the computer as a means to

review and edit a spreadsheet. Id. at col. 2 ll. 45–56. This

was particularly true for three-dimensional spreadsheets,

which allowed users to build spreadsheet workspaces

consisting of multiple two-dimensional spreadsheets,

further increasing the complexity of using and navigating

between multiple spreadsheets. Id. at col. 2 l. 66–col. 3

l. 24.

The Tab Patents solved this known technological

problem in computers in a particular way—by providing a

highly intuitive, user-friendly interface with familiar

notebook tabs for navigating the three-dimensional work-

sheet environment. Id. at col. 3 ll. 44–52. The improve-

ment allowed computers, for the first time, to provide

rapid access to and processing of information in different

spreadsheets, as well as easy navigation in three-

14 DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

dimensional spreadsheets. The invention was applauded

by the industry for improving computers’ functionality as

a tool able to instantly access all parts of complex three-

dimensional electronic spreadsheets. Numerous contem-

poraneous articles attributed the improved three-

dimensional spreadsheets’ success to its notebook tab

feature. 2

Representative claim 12 recites precisely this tech-

nical solution and improvement in computer spreadsheet

functionality. The claim recites specific steps detailing

the method of navigating through spreadsheet pages

within a three-dimensional spreadsheet environment

using notebook tabs. The claim requires displaying on a

screen display a row of spreadsheet page identifiers along

2 The district court declined to consider the articles

included in the prosecution history, relying only on the

pleadings and the patents attached to DET’s complaint.

District Court Op., 211 F. Supp. 3d at 681 n.4. On a

motion for judgment on the pleadings, however, the court

may consider “matters of public record.” Cf. Bruni v. City

of Pittsburgh, 824 F.3d 353, 360 (3d Cir. 2016) (quoting

Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc.,

998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993)). Prosecution histories

constitute public records. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc.

v. Avia Group Int’l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 957 (Fed. Cir.

2000) (“The prosecution history constitutes a public

record . . . .”); see 37 C.F.R. § 1.11(a) (“The specification,

drawings, and all papers to the file of: [a] published

application; a patent; or a statutory invention registration

are open to inspection by the public . . . .”). We consider

this evidence relevant in our de novo review because it is

part of the Tab Patents’ prosecution histories and was

relied on in DET’s opposition to Google’s Rule 12(c) mo-

tion.

DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 15

one side of the first spreadsheet page, with each spread-

sheet page identifier being a notebook tab. The claim

requires at least one user-settable identifying character to

label the notebook tab and describes navigating through

the various spreadsheet pages through selection of the

notebook tabs. The claim further requires a formula that

uses the identifying character to operate on information

spread between different spreadsheet pages that are

identified by their tabs. The claimed method does not

recite the idea of navigating through spreadsheet pages

using buttons or a generic method of labeling and organiz-

ing spreadsheets. Rather, the claims require a specific

interface and implementation for navigating complex

three-dimensional spreadsheets using techniques unique

to computers.

In this regard, claim 12 is similar to the claims we

held patent eligible in Core Wireless. There, the claims

were directed to an improved display interface that al-

lowed users to more quickly access stored data and pro-

grams in small-screen electronics, thereby improving the

efficient functioning of the computer. Core Wireless,

880 F.3d at 1359. The prior art taught that small-screen

electronic interfaces required users to scroll through and

switch views to find desired data and functions. Id.

at 1363. Core Wireless’s invention, however, improved

the efficiency of these display interfaces. By displaying

only a limited list of common functions and data from

which to choose, the invention spared users from time-

consuming operations of navigating to, opening up, and

then navigating within, each separate application. Id.

The invention thus increased the efficiency with which

users could navigate through various views and windows.

Id. We rejected the accused infringer’s contention that

the claims were merely directed to the abstract idea of

indexing information because the claims were directed “to

an improved user interface for computing devices” and “a

particular manner of summarizing and presenting infor-

16 DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

mation in electronic devices.” Id. at 1362 (emphasis

added). We concluded that the claims were patent eligible

because the claims “recite[d] a specific improvement over

prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for

electronic devices,” and thus were directed to “an im-

provement in the functioning of computers.” Id. at 1363.

Claim 12 of the ’259 patent similarly recites a method

that differs from prior art navigation methods and “pro-

vide[s] for rapidly accessing and processing information”

in three-dimensional spreadsheets. ’259 patent col. 3

ll. 53–54. “[I]nstead of finding information by scrolling

different parts of a large spreadsheet” the invention

“allows the user to simply and conveniently ‘flip through’

several pages of the notebook to rapidly locate infor-

mation of interest.” Id. at col. 8 ll. 51–57. Moreover, akin

to the claims in Core Wireless, claim 12 recites a “specific”

and “particular” manner of navigating a three-

dimensional spreadsheet that improves the efficient

functioning of computers. See Core Wireless, 880 F.3d

at 1362, 1363.

Likewise, claim 12 comports with the claims we held

patent eligible in Trading Technologies International, Inc.

v. CQG, Inc. 675 F. App’x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017). There,

the claims recited a trading system in which a graphical

user interface displayed dynamic bid and ask prices for a

particular commodity traded in the market along with a

static display of prices corresponding to the bids and asks.

Id. at 1003. The system paired orders with the static

display of prices to prevent entry of orders that had

changed prices. Id. The patents explained that the

invention solved an existing problem in the prior art by

reducing the time it took to place and execute a trading

order. We agreed with the district court that “the chal-

lenged patents ‘solve[d] problems of prior graphical user

interface devices . . . in the context of computerized trad-

ing[] relating to speed, accuracy and usability.’” Id.

at 1004 (alterations in original) (quoting Trading Techs.

DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 17

Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 05-cv-4811, 2015 WL 774655,

at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 24, 2015)). As the district court had

explained, the claims were not merely directed to display-

ing information on a graphical user interface, but rather

“require[d] a specific, structured graphical user interface

paired with a prescribed functionality directly related to

the graphical user interface’s structure that is addressed

to and resolves a specifically identified problem in the

prior state of the art.” Id. We agreed and adopted the

district court’s articulated reasons to conclude that the

claims were not abstract under Alice step one. Id.

Google asserts that this court has repeatedly found

that claims directed to methods of organizing and pre-

senting information are abstract and that we should so

hold here. During oral argument, Google identified three

cases to best support its position: Affinity Labs of Texas,

LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016);

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial

Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (hereinafter, “Capi-

tal One”); and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem-

nity Co., 850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (hereinafter, “Erie

Indemnity”). See Oral Arg. at 29:57–30:51,

http://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx

?fl=2017-1135.mp3. We have reviewed these cases, but

conclude that the claims in those cases were materially

different.

In Affinity Labs, we held that claims directed to

“streaming regional broadcast signals to cellular tele-

phones located outside the region” were ineligible because

“[t]he concept of providing out-of-region access to regional

broadcast content is an abstract idea.” 838 F.3d at 1255,

1258. The claims were “entirely functional in nature,”

and we found nothing in the claims “directed to how to

implement out-of-region broadcasting.” Id. at 1258.

Although the representative claim also recited “a graph-

ical user interface” for displaying a menu of available

media options from which a user could select, the limita-

18 DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

tion was “conventional,” insignificant extra-solution

activity and thus insufficient to confer patent eligibility.

Id. at 1261. In Capital One, the claims were directed to

an apparatus for managing eXtensible Markup Language

(“XML”) documents. 850 F.3d at 1338. The invention

allowed users to make changes to data in a “dynamic

document,” which could then be dynamically propagated

back into an original XML document. Id. at 1339. We

held those claims were “directed to the abstract idea of

collecting, displaying, and manipulating data.” Id.

at 1340. In Erie Indemnity, we held that claims reciting a

method for searching a database using an index of de-

scriptive terms associated with “category” and “domain”

tags were directed to the abstract idea of “creating an

index and using that index to search for and retrieve

data.” 850 F.3d at 1326–27. The claims did not recite any

specific structure or improvement of computer functional-

ity sufficient to render the claims not abstract. Id.

at 1328–29.

In contrast to Affinity Labs, Capital One, and Erie In-

demnity, representative claim 12 is not simply directed to

displaying a graphical user interface or collecting, manip-

ulating, or organizing information to improve navigation

through three-dimensional spreadsheets. 3 Instead, the

3 We have also considered Affinity Labs of Texas,

LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2016),

also cited by Google, and find it distinguishable as well.

There, the claims were directed to “a network-based

media system with a customized user interface, in which

the system delivers streaming content from a network-

based resource.” Id. at 1268. We held the claims ineligi-

ble because “the concept of delivering user-selected media

content to portable devices is an abstract idea.”

Id. at 1269. Although the claim recited a “customized

DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 19

claim recites a specific structure (i.e., notebook tabs)

within a particular spreadsheet display that performs a

specific function (i.e., navigating within a three-

dimensional spreadsheet).

Nor is representative claim 12 directed generally to

displaying information on a screen, without “requir[ing] a

new source or type of information, or new techniques for

analyzing it,” like the claims in Electric Power Group,

LLC v. Alstom S.A. 830 F.3d 1350, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir.

2016). And unlike ineligible claims that merely “collect[],

organiz[e], and display . . . information on a generic

display device,” claim 12 recites “a specific improvement

to the way computers . . . operate.” See Interval Licensing

LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2018)

(quoting Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327,

1336 (Fed Cir. 2016)).

At Alice step one, “it is not enough to merely identify a

patent-ineligible concept underlying the claim; we must

determine whether that patent-ineligible concept is what

the claim is ‘directed to.’” Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v.

CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

And that inquiry requires that the claims be read as a

whole. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 n.3. We conclude

that, when read as a whole, in light of the specification,

user interface,” we held that “‘customizing information

based on . . . information known about the user’ is an

abstract idea.” Id. at 1271 (alteration in original) (quoting

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),

792 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Representative

claim 12 of the ’259 patent, however, is different. Alt-

hough its recited notebook tabs can be customized, see

’259 patent col. 8 ll. 19–23, they are more than merely

labeled tabs. They implement a specific function—an

improved manner of navigating through the spreadsheet.

20 DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

claim 12 is directed to more than a generic or abstract

idea as it claims a particular manner of navigating three-

dimensional spreadsheets, implementing an improvement

in electronic spreadsheet functionality.

Google avers that humans have long used tabs to or-

ganize information. It cites tabbed notebooks, binder

dividers, file folders, and sticky Post-it notes as well-

known examples of organizing information using tabs.

We agree that tabs existed outside the context of electron-

ic spreadsheets prior to the claimed invention. It is not

enough, however, to merely trace the invention to some

real-world analogy. The eligibility question is not wheth-

er anyone has ever used tabs to organize information.

That question is reserved for §§ 102 and 103. The ques-

tion of abstraction is whether the claim is “directed to” the

abstract idea itself. Id. We must consider the claim as a

whole to determine whether the claim is directed to an

abstract idea or something more. Google fails to appreci-

ate the functional improvement achieved by the specifical-

ly recited notebook tabs in the claimed methods. The

notebook appearance of the tabs was specifically chosen

by the inventors because it is easily identified by users.

The tabs are not merely labeled buttons or other generic

icons. DET has disclaimed as much. See Oral

Arg. at 11:03–47. Rather, the notebook tabs are specific

structures within the three-dimensional spreadsheet

environment that allow a user to avoid the burdensome

task of navigating through spreadsheets in separate

windows using arbitrary commands.

Because we conclude that representative claim 12 of

the ’259 patent is not abstract under Alice step one, we

need not reach Alice step two with respect to claim 12.

See Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1363.

B

Notwithstanding our conclusion that representative

claim 12 of the ’259 patent is directed to patent-eligible

DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 21

subject matter, we conclude that claim 1 of the ’551 pa-

tent is ineligible.

Claim 1 of the ’551 patent recites:

1. In an electronic spreadsheet for processing al-

phanumeric information, said . . . electronic

spreadsheet comprising a three-dimensional

spreadsheet operative in a digital computer and

including a plurality of cells for entering data and

formulas, a method for organizing the three-

dimensional spreadsheet comprising:

partitioning said plurality of cells into a plurality

of two-dimensional cell matrices so that each of

the two-dimensional cell matrices can be present-

ed to a user as a spreadsheet page;

associating each of the cell matrices with a user-

settable page identifier which serves as a unique

identifier for said each cell matrix;

creating in a first cell of a first page at least one

formula referencing a second cell of a second page

said formula including the user-settable page

identifier for the second page; and

storing said first and second pages of the plurality

of cell matrices such that they appear to the user

as being stored within a single file.

’551 patent col. 23 l. 60–col. 24 l. 13.

We conclude that under Alice step one, this claim is

directed to the abstract idea of identifying and storing

electronic spreadsheet pages. DET concedes that, unlike

claim 12 of the ’259 patent, claim 1 of the ’551 patent is

“directed at something a bit more general.”

See Oral Arg. at 9:55–58. Indeed, it generically recites

“associating each of the cell matrices with a user-settable

page identifier” and does not recite the specific implemen-

tation of a notebook tab interface. ’551 patent col. 24

22 DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

ll. 3–4. Claim 1 of the ’551 patent is therefore not limited

to the specific technical solution and improvement in

electronic spreadsheet functionality that rendered repre-

sentative claim 12 of the ’259 patent eligible. Instead,

claim 1 of the ’551 patent covers any means for identify-

ing electronic spreadsheet pages.

Because claim 1 of the ’551 patent is directed to an

abstract idea, we must turn to Alice step two to “deter-

mine 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).

The “mere recitation of a generic computer cannot trans-

form a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-

eligible invention.” Id. at 2358. “For the role of a com-

puter in a computer-implemented invention to be deemed

meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve

more than performance of ‘well-understood, routine, [and]

conventional activities previously known to the industry.’”

Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo

Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347–48 (Fed. Cir.

2014) (alteration in original) (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct.

at 2359).

After a searching review, the additional elements of

claim 1 of the ’551 patent fail to provide an inventive

concept. Claim 1 merely recites partitioning cells to be

presented as a spreadsheet, referencing in one cell of a

page a formula referencing a second page, and saving the

pages such that they appear as being stored as one file.

These limitations merely recite the method of implement-

ing the abstract idea itself and thus fail under Alice step

two. Therefore, we conclude that claim 1 of the

’551 patent is ineligible under § 101.

III

Finally, we turn to the ’146 patent, which is directed

to a method of tracking changes in three-dimensional

spreadsheets. Beginning at Alice step one, we agree with

DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 23

the district court that these claims are directed to the

abstract idea of collecting spreadsheet data, recognizing

changes to spreadsheet data, and storing information

about the changes.

The district court considered claims 1 and 26 repre-

sentative of all asserted claims of the ’146 patent.

See District Court Op., 211 F. Supp. 3d at 680. At their

core, these claims recite tracking changes in a spread-

sheet by: (1) creating a base version of a spreadsheet,

(2) creating a new version of the spreadsheet, and

(3) determining which cells of data have changed by

comparing the new and base versions. The concept of

manually tracking modifications across multiple sheets is

an abstract idea. The mere automation of this process

does not negate its abstraction. Unlike claim 12 of the

’259 patent, nothing in the ’146 patent’s claims viewed in

light of the specification convinces us that the claimed

method improves spreadsheet functionality in a specific

way sufficient to render the claims not abstract.

We agree with the district court that these claims are

akin to those we held ineligible in Content Extraction.

There, the claims were directed to methods of extracting

data from hard-copy documents using an automated

scanner, recognizing information from the extracted data,

and storing that data in memory. Content Extraction,

776 F.3d at 1345, 1347. We see no material difference in

the level of abstraction here. The ’146 patent’s claims

recite determining changes to spreadsheets by comparing

the cells in two versions of the spreadsheet and storing

that information. We reject DET’s attempt to distinguish

Content Extraction on the ground that it involved a busi-

ness method. Regardless of the field of the technology,

the claims at issue here are sufficiently similar to those in

Content Extraction for us to conclude that the claims of

the ’146 patent are also abstract. As in Content Extrac-

tion, we hold that the asserted claims of the ’146 patent

24 DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

are directed to the abstract idea of collecting, recognizing,

and storing the recognized data in memory. Id. at 1347.

We also conclude that the asserted claims of the

’146 patent do not recite an inventive concept under Alice

step two. The claims recite the generic steps of creating a

base version of a spreadsheet, creating a new version of

the spreadsheet, and determining changes made to the

original version. These claims do not recite anything

“more than simply stat[ing] the [abstract idea] while

adding the words ‘apply it.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357

(alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72).

“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot

transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-

eligible invention.” Id. at 2358. We have considered

DET’s arguments that other claims of the ’146 patent,

including claims 27 and 28, provide an additional in-

ventive concept and find them unpersuasive.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that, with the

exception of claim 1 of the ’551 patent, the asserted claims

of the Tab Patents are not directed to patent-ineligible

subject matter under Alice step one and therefore satisfy

§ 101. We determine, however, that the asserted claims

of the ’146 patent are directed to an abstract idea, provide

no inventive concept, and are therefore ineligible under

§ 101.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART, AND

REMANDED

COSTS

No costs.