Case: 22-1468 Document: 35 Page: 1 Filed: 01/17/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
RIGGS TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
CENGAGE LEARNING, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2022-1468
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts in No. 1:21-cv-10778-LTS, Judge
Leo T. Sorokin.
______________________
Decided: January 17, 2023
______________________
WILLIAM PETERSON RAMEY, III, Ramey LLP, Houston,
TX, for plaintiff-appellant.
RICARDO BONILLA, Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, TX,
for defendant-appellee. Also represented by NEIL J.
MCNABNAY, RODEEN TALEBI.
______________________
Before TARANTO, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
Case: 22-1468 Document: 35 Page: 2 Filed: 01/17/2023
2 RIGGS TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS, LLC v.
CENGAGE LEARNING, INC.
CHEN, Circuit Judge.
Riggs Technology Holdings, LLC (Riggs) appeals from
a decision by the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Massachusetts holding that the claims of U.S. Pa-
tent No. 7,299,067 (’067 patent) are directed to patent-
ineligible subject matter under
35 U.S.C. § 101. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
I
The ’067 patent is titled “Methods and Systems for
Managing the Provision of Training Provided Remotely
Through Electronic Data Networks to Users of Remote
Electronic Devices.” Claim 1 is representative 1 and recites:
1. A method of managing training completed re-
motely at a hand held device, said method compris-
ing the step[s] of:
receiving at a training server training data
transmitted to the training server through
a data network from a user of a hand held
device, the training data representing
training taken by the user at hand held de-
vice;
receiving identifying information for the
user of a hand held device concurrently
with the training data file;
1 The parties agree on appeal, as they did before the
district court, that claim 1 is representative for eligibil-
ity purposes. Appellant’s Br. 4; Appellee’s Br. 12; see
also Riggs Tech. Holdings, LLC v. Cengage Learning,
Inc.,
581 F. Supp. 3d 357, 360 (D. Mass. 2022). We
therefore treat claim 1 as representative for our analy-
sis. See Yu v. Apple Inc.,
1 F.4th 1040, 1042 n.1 (Fed.
Cir. 2021).
Case: 22-1468 Document: 35 Page: 3 Filed: 01/17/2023
RIGGS TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS, LLC v. 3
CENGAGE LEARNING, INC.
identifying the user of the hand held de-
vice;
authenticating the identify [sic] of the user
of the hand held device by requesting au-
thentication data from the user and com-
paring the authentication data with a
master user identification template con-
taining authentication data associated
with the user and accessible by the training
server to determine if said comparison au-
thenticates the user’s identify [sic] as an
authorized trainee;
recording the training data in memory as-
sociated with the training server;
locating at least one training file contained
within the training data;
determining status of the training file by
comparing the training file with an associ-
ated master training template accessible
from memory by the training server, the
status including a determination if train-
ing represented by the training file meets a
set criterion including at least one of: pend-
ing, incomplete, failed, passed; and
recording training status in memory.
’067 patent col. 29 ll. 2–28. In short, representative claim 1
is directed to a method of managing training completed re-
motely at a handheld device comprising the steps of (1) re-
ceiving data related to a user and training taken by the
user, (2) identifying and authenticating the user, and
(3) determining and recording the user’s training status.
II
Riggs sued Cengage Learning, Inc. (Cengage) in the
District of Massachusetts, alleging infringement of “one or
Case: 22-1468 Document: 35 Page: 4 Filed: 01/17/2023
4 RIGGS TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS, LLC v.
CENGAGE LEARNING, INC.
more claims” of the ’067 patent. Riggs Tech. Holdings, LLC
v. Cengage Learning, Inc.,
581 F. Supp. 3d 357, 358–59 (D.
Mass. 2022). Cengage moved to dismiss the complaint on
the basis that the ’067 patent’s claims are directed to inel-
igible subject matter under
35 U.S.C. § 101,
id. at 359, and
the district court granted Cengage’s motion,
id. at 363. In
doing so, the court concluded that the ’067 patent “is
plainly drawn to an abstract idea,” explaining that “the
concept underlying the claims of the ’067 patent—provid-
ing, managing, and/or documenting training completed re-
motely on a handheld device—is akin to those found in
claims the Federal Circuit has deemed abstract and ineli-
gible.”
Id. at 361 (citations omitted). The court also deter-
mined that the claims contain no inventive concept
“because the claimed components and features (e.g., ‘train-
ing data,’ ‘server,’ ‘data network,’ ‘identifying information,’
‘hand held device,’ and ‘authentication data’)—none of
which Riggs claims to have invented—are all generically
defined and conventional.”
Id. at 362 (citations omitted).
Riggs timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under
28
U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
DISCUSSION
We review a district court’s grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) mo-
tion under the law of the regional circuit. Yu v. Apple Inc.,
1 F.4th 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). Un-
der First Circuit law, we review such dismissals de novo,
accepting as true all well-pled facts alleged in the com-
plaint and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plain-
tiff’s favor. In re Loestrin 24 Fe Antitrust Litig.,
814 F.3d
538, 549 (1st Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). Patent eligibil-
ity under
35 U.S.C. § 101 is ultimately an issue of law that
we review de novo. Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
881 F.3d 1360,
1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Section 101 provides that “[w]hoever invents or discov-
ers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
Case: 22-1468 Document: 35 Page: 5 Filed: 01/17/2023
RIGGS TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS, LLC v. 5
CENGAGE LEARNING, INC.
thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the condi-
tions and requirements of” Title 35 of the United States
Code. The Supreme Court has long held that “[l]aws of na-
ture, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not pa-
tentable” under § 101. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank
Int’l,
573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (quoting Ass’n for Molecular
Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.,
569 U.S. 576, 589
(2013)).
In Alice, 573 U.S. at 218, and Mayo Collaborative Ser-
vices v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66, 77–78
(2012), the Supreme Court set forth a two-step test for de-
termining whether claimed subject matter falls within one
of the judicial exceptions to patent eligibility. First, we “de-
termine whether the claims at issue are directed to a pa-
tent-ineligible concept,” such as an abstract idea. Alice,
573 U.S. at 218. Second, if the claims are directed to a pa-
tent-ineligible concept, we “examine the elements of the
claim to determine whether it contains an inventive con-
cept sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into
a patent-eligible application.” Id. at 221 (internal quota-
tion marks omitted) (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 72, 80).
I. Alice/Mayo Step One
We conclude that representative claim 1 is directed to
the patent-ineligible abstract mental process of managing
training that was provided remotely. The claimed steps
accomplish nothing more than receiving information that a
user completed a training and updating a record of that
user’s training. These steps “involve making determina-
tions and identifications, which are mental tasks humans
routinely do.” In re Killian,
45 F.4th 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
2022) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As
we have explained, “where the focus of the claimed advance
over the prior art shows that the claim’s character as a
whole is directed to steps that can be performed in the hu-
man mind, or by a human using a pen and paper[,] the
Case: 22-1468 Document: 35 Page: 6 Filed: 01/17/2023
6 RIGGS TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS, LLC v.
CENGAGE LEARNING, INC.
claim is for a patent-ineligible abstract idea.”
Id. (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted).
That claim 1 performs the recited steps “on a generic
computer does not save [it] from being directed to an ab-
stract idea.”
Id. at 1379–80. Our cases “have distinguished
between claims directed to an improvement in the function-
ing of a computer, versus those . . . that simply recite gen-
eralized steps to be performed on a computer using
conventional computer activity.”
Id. at 1380 (internal quo-
tation marks and citations omitted). Claim 1 is not di-
rected to improving the functioning of the recited handheld
device or server, and contrary to Riggs’s assertion, it does
not address a problem “necessarily rooted in computer
technology in order to solve a specific problem in the realm
of computer networks.” Appellant’s Br. 18. Instead,
claim 1 uses “conventional or generic technology in a nas-
cent but well-known environment” to implement the ab-
stract idea of managing training completed remotely. In re
TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig.,
823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir.
2016). The recited technology, like handheld devices and
servers, are used as a “conduit for the abstract idea,” not to
provide a technological solution to a specific technological
problem. Id.; see also
id. at 611–13 (holding claims reciting
the use of a cellular telephone and a network server to clas-
sify an image and store the image based on its classification
to be abstract because the patent did “not describe a new
telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of
the two” and did not address “how to combine a camera
with a cellular telephone, how to transmit images via a cel-
lular network, or even how to append classification infor-
mation to that data”).
As we explained in Killian, we have found “similar
claims pertaining to data gathering, analysis, and notifica-
tion on generic computers to be directed to abstract ideas
at Alice/Mayo step one.” 45 F.4th at 1380. In Killian, we
held claims reciting a “search algorithm for identifying peo-
ple who may be eligible for [Social Security Disability
Case: 22-1468 Document: 35 Page: 7 Filed: 01/17/2023
RIGGS TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS, LLC v. 7
CENGAGE LEARNING, INC.
Insurance] benefits that they are not receiving” were “di-
rected to [a] patent-ineligible abstract mental process.” Id.
at 1379. We explained that the “claims must fail Al-
ice/Mayo step one as they are directed to collection of in-
formation, comprehending the meaning of that collected
information, and indication of the results, all on a generic
computer network operating in its normal, expected man-
ner.” Id. at 1380.
Here, representative claim 1 is directed to collecting
and storing information using a generic computer network
operating in its normal, expected manner. Thus, like the
claims in Killian, claim 1 must fail Alice/Mayo step one.
See also, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
830
F.3d 1350, 1351, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding claims
directed to collecting electric power grid data, analyzing
the data, and displaying the results were directed to an ab-
stract idea because “we have recognized that merely pre-
senting the results of [the] abstract processes of collecting
and analyzing information, without more . . . , is abstract”);
Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo
Bank, Nat’l Ass’n,
776 F.3d 1343, 1345, 1347 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (holding claims directed to extracting data from hard
copy documents using a scanner were directed to an ab-
stract idea because the “concept of data collection, recogni-
tion, and storage is undisputedly well-known” and
“humans have always performed these functions”).
II. Alice/Mayo Step Two
We also hold that the ’067 patent’s claims lack an in-
ventive concept. A claim fails Alice/Mayo step two by
“[s]tating an abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it
with a computer.’” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223. In Killian, for
example, we found the claims lacked an inventive concept
where “[t]he additional steps in representative claim 1 do
no more than instruct the practitioner to perform the ab-
stract steps of gathering information, determining if a per-
son is receiving benefits or is eligible for benefits under the
Case: 22-1468 Document: 35 Page: 8 Filed: 01/17/2023
8 RIGGS TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS, LLC v.
CENGAGE LEARNING, INC.
law, and displaying the results of that analysis, all on a
generic computer.” 45 F.4th at 1380. The same is true
here. Representative claim 1 recites the abstract steps of
gathering and storing information using a generic
handheld device and server, and thus it lacks an inventive
concept. Indeed, the ’067 patent’s only purported advance
is managing training that is completed remotely on a wire-
less, handheld device (e.g., a cellular telephone). See Ap-
pellant’s Br. 23–24; see also ’067 patent at col. 4 ll. 4–25.
The Supreme Court has explained, however, that “limiting
the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological en-
vironment” is not enough for patent eligibility. Alice, 573
U.S. at 223 (internal quotation marks and citation omit-
ted); see also, e.g., Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV,
LLC,
838 F.3d 1253, 1258–59 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding
claims that limited the wireless delivery of regional broad-
cast content only to cellphones “does not alter the result”
that the “concept of providing out-of-region access to re-
gional broadcast content is an abstract idea”).
The ’067 patent’s specification reinforces the fact that
the claim 1 implements its abstract idea through “well-un-
derstood, routine, conventional components.” Yu, 1 F.4th
at 1045. For example, the claimed handheld device “can be
implemented” using “wireless, data-enabled hand held
computing devices well known in the art.” ’067 patent at
col. 9 ll. 18–23; see also id. at col. 3 ll. 25–58, col. 9 ll. 13–18,
col. 9 l. 58 – col. 10 l. 18. Additionally, “[t]hose skilled in
the art can appreciate that a variety of possible wireless
communications and networking configurations can be uti-
lized to implement a wireless network.” Id. at col. 12
ll. 19–21; see also id. at col. 3 ll. 38–47, col. 9 ll. 53–58,
col. 12 ll. 5–7, col. 12 ll. 22–28. And “[a]uthentication of
training can be by username and password procedures
known in the art.” Id. at col. 20 ll. 26–27; see also id. at
col. 16 ll. 50–59. Finally, the specification provides no de-
tail suggesting that the claimed “training server” is uncon-
ventional or operates in an unconventional manner.
Case: 22-1468 Document: 35 Page: 9 Filed: 01/17/2023
RIGGS TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS, LLC v. 9
CENGAGE LEARNING, INC.
In sum, nothing in the ’067 patent suggests that the
patentee intended to accomplish any of the steps recited in
representative claim 1 through anything other than well-
understood technology used in a routine and conventional
manner. Thus, representative claim 1 lacks an inventive
concept. See also, e.g., Elec. Power Grp.,
830 F.3d at 1355
(holding claims lacked inventive concept where “[n]othing
in the claims, understood in light of the specification, re-
quires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional com-
puter, network, and display technology for gathering,
sending, and presenting the desired information”); Content
Extraction,
776 F.3d at 1348 (holding claims lacked an in-
ventive concept where the claims recited the use of “exist-
ing scanning and processing technology”).
III. Rule 12(b)(6)
Finally, we are not persuaded by Riggs’s argument that
factual issues—i.e., whether the claims of the ’067 patent
refer to conventional technology or not—preclude dismiss-
ing the suit at this preliminary stage. Appellant’s Br. 24.
We have held that patent eligibility can be determined at
the Rule 12(b)(6) stage “when there are no factual allega-
tions that, taken as true, prevent resolving the eligibility
question as a matter of law.” Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green
Shades Software, Inc.,
882 F.3d 1121, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(citations omitted). We also have explained that “where
the specification admits the additional claim elements are
well-understood, routine, and conventional, it will be diffi-
cult, if not impossible, for a patentee to show a genuine dis-
pute.” Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
890 F.3d 1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Moore, J., concurring
in the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc) (citation
omitted). This is the case here. As explained above, the
’067 patent’s specification admits that the claim elements
are well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus
the district court did not err in dismissing Riggs’s com-
plaint.
Case: 22-1468 Document: 35 Page: 10 Filed: 01/17/2023
10 RIGGS TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS, LLC v.
CENGAGE LEARNING, INC.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Riggs’s remaining arguments and
find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we af-
firm.
AFFIRMED
