Case: 21-1105 Document: 39 Page: 1 Filed: 07/13/2021
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
AFTECHMOBILE INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
SALESFORCE.COM, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2021-1105
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California in No. 4:19-cv-05903-JST,
Judge Jon S. Tigar.
______________________
Decided: July 13, 2021
______________________
MATTHEW MICHAEL WAWRZYN, Wawrzyn LLC, Chi-
cago, IL, for plaintiff-appellant.
DAN L. BAGATELL, Perkins Coie LLP, Hanover, NH, for
defendant-appellee. Also represented by TARA LAUREN
KURTIS, Chicago, IL; SHYAMKRISHNA PALAIYANUR, JOSE
CARLOS VILLARREAL, Austin, TX; CHAO WANG, Palo Alto,
CA.
______________________
Case: 21-1105 Document: 39 Page: 2 Filed: 07/13/2021
2 AFTECHMOBILE INC. v. SALESFORCE.COM, INC.
Before MOORE, Chief Judge, LINN and CHEN, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Aftechmobile appeals the dismissal of its complaint al-
leging infringement of Aftechmobile’s U.S. Patent Nos.
8,813,028 and No. 10,133,558 based on patent ineligibility.
Because the district court did not err in its analysis of pa-
tent ineligibility, we affirm.
The ‘558 patent is a continuation of the ’028 patent and
both share the same specification. Aftechmobile alleges
that the invention in both patents allowed technically un-
sophisticated users to create mobile applications without
coding by integrating pre-coded software with new applica-
tions to connect to backend databases.
This court reviews dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6) un-
der the law of the regional circuit. Simio, LLC v. FlexSim
Software Prods., Inc.,
983 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
The Ninth Circuit reviews such dismissals de novo. Barrett
v. Belleque,
544 F.3d 1060, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008). Patent
eligibility is a question of law reviewed by this court de
novo. Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
882 F.3d 1121, 1128 (Fed. Cir. 2018). We apply the Alice
two-step process for determining patent eligibility. See Al-
ice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
573 U.S. 208, 217–18
(2014).
At Step 1, the district court did not err in holding that
the claims of both patents are directed to “the abstract idea
of enabling the creation of mobile applications without cod-
ing by combining pre-coded software components.” Af-
techmobile Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., No. 19-CV-05903-
JST,
2020 WL 6129139, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2020) (Dis-
trict Court Op.). The district court correctly explained that,
while the claim recited a computer program to accomplish
various functions by running a “computer program code”
stored in a generic computer storage medium and run on a
Case: 21-1105 Document: 39 Page: 3 Filed: 07/13/2021
AFTECHMOBILE INC. v. SALESFORCE.COM, INC. 3
generic computer processor, it nowhere recited how the
program code was written or how it worked to accomplish
those functions. Id. at *6. The recitation of desired func-
tions without corresponding recitations on how to achieve
or implement those functions leaves the claims devoid of
anything but the abstract idea. See Apple, Inc. v.
Ameranth, Inc.,
842 F.3d 1229, 1240–41 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc.,
838 F.3d
1266, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This places the claims herein
firmly within the world of Electric Power Group, LLC. v.
Alstom S.A.,
830 F.3d 1350, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and Er-
icsson Inc. v. TCL Communication Tech. Holdings Ltd.,
955
F.3d 1317, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2020), and adequately distin-
guishes the claims from those found not directed to patent
ineligible abstract ideas in Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Ge-
malto M2M GmbH,
942 F.3d 1143, 1148–50; Ancora Tech-
nologies, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc.,
908 F.3d 1343, 1348
(Fed. Cir. 2018); Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google
LLC,
906 F.3d 999, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2018); and Visual
Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp.,
867 F.3d 1253, 1259–60
(Fed. Cir. 2017); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games
America Inc.,
837 F.3d 1299, 1313–14 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The district court also did not err in holding that the
claims lack an inventive concept at Step 2. As noted, the
claims recite generic computer components and desired re-
sults without specific implementation. This is not a case
like Aatrix Software, Inc., 882 F.3d at 1128, or BASCOM
Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
827
F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), with concrete allegations
of non-routine activity and limitations on how the abstract
idea is to be implemented. Although Aftechmobile argues
that the claims show one of ordinary skill how to marry the
front and backend, Aftechmobile does not explain where in
the claims, the specification, the complaint, or the briefing
an explanation can be found on how that is done, or what
components or ordered combination of components consti-
tute the inventive step to accomplish that result.
Case: 21-1105 Document: 39 Page: 4 Filed: 07/13/2021
4 AFTECHMOBILE INC. v. SALESFORCE.COM, INC.
The recited claim limitations, lengthy as they may be,
and the bare statement of patent validity in the complaint
do not save the complaint from dismissal.
AFFIRMED
