In a claimed method comprising an abstract idea, generic computer automation of one or more steps evinces little human contribution. There is no specific or limiting recitation of essential, see SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1332–33 (Fed.Cir.2010), or improved computer technology, see Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 865, 868–69 (Fed.Cir.2010), and no reason to view the computer limitation as anything but “insignificant postsolution activity” relative to the abstract idea, see Fort Props., Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC, 671 F.3d 1317, 1323–24 (Fed.Cir.2012). Furthermore, simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.

In this case, ruling on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment does not require the Court first to perform claim construction. See, e.g., Fort Props., Inc. v. Am. Master Lease, LLC, 671 F.3d 1317 (Fed.Cir.2012) (affirming granting summary judgment under § 101 without any discussion of claim construction). The '509 Patent's eleven Claims are sufficiently straightforward that claim construction is not necessary to understand their content.

See [Dkt. 87, 94, 100, 102, 104, 107, 109, 111, 115, 116, 118]. Although the MOT test is still a “useful ... tool” for determining patent-eligibility, Bilski, 130 S.Ct. at 3227, the courts have focused on refining the judicial limitation that abstract ideas cannot be patented. The courts agree that “an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection,” Fort Props., Inc. v. Am. Master Lease, LLC, 671 F.3d 1317, 1321 (Fed.Cir.2012) (emphasis in original) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187, 101 S.Ct. 1048, 67 L.Ed.2d 155 (1981)); however, “the prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment’ or adding ‘insignificant postsolution activity,’ ” Bilski, 130 S.Ct. at 3230 (quoting Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191–192, 101 S.Ct. 1048). Thus, for “an otherwise unpatentable process” to be made patent-eligible by use of “a machine, the use of the machine ‘must impose meaningful limits on the claim's scope.’ ”

Similar to both CyberSource and Dealertrack, in Fort Properties, Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC, the court considered a patent that described "an investment tool designed to enable property owners to buy and sell properties without incurring tax liability." 671 F.3d 1317, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The patent described a process to take advantage of an exception to the taxation of real estate sales proceeds under "26 U.S.C. § 1031, which allows an owner of investment property to exchange one property for another of like kind without incurring tax liability if" certain conditions are met.

In light of these precedents, we conclude that the asserted claims are equally drawn to an abstract idea. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 1373 (Fed.Cir.2011) (holding that “a method for verifying the validity of a credit card transaction over the Internet” was directed to an abstract idea or unpatentable mental process); Fort Props., Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC, 671 F.3d 1317, 1318, 1320 (Fed.Cir.2012) (concluding that a patent claiming an “investment tool designed to enable property owners to buy and sell properties without incurring tax liability” was drawn to an abstract idea); Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1331, 1334 (Fed.Cir.2012) (determining that a computer-implemented method of managing a credit application was drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea); Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1269, 1277, (holding that a patent claiming “systems and methods for administering and tracking the value of life insurance policies in separate accounts” was directed to an abstract idea); Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1339, 1342 (Fed.Cir.2013) (determining that claims to automated methods for generating task lists to be performed by an insurance organization were directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 712, 714 (Fed.Cir.2014) (holding that a computer- and Internet-based implementation of disp

Instead, the relevant inquiry is whether a claim, as a whole, includes meaningful limitations restricting it to an application, rather than merely an abstract idea. See Prometheus, 132 S.Ct. at 1297 (“[D]o the patent claims add enough to their statements of the correlations to allow the processes they describe to qualify as patent-eligible processes that apply natural laws?”); see also Fort Props., Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC, 671 F.3d 1317, 1323 (Fed.Cir.2012) (“[T]o impart patent-eligibility to an otherwise unpatentable process under the theory that the process is linked to a machine, the use of the machine must impose meaningful limits on the claim's scope.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

The mere implementation on a computer of an otherwise ineligible abstract idea will not render the asserted “invention” patent eligible. See Fort Props. Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC, 671 F.3d 1317, 1322 (Fed.Cir.2012) (“[An] abstract concept cannot be transformed into patentable subject matter merely because of connections to the physical world.”); Dealertrack Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed.Cir.2012) (“Simply adding a ‘computer aided’ limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible.”); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed.Cir.2011) (“[W]e have never suggested that simply reciting the use of a computer to execute an algorithm that can be performed entirely in the human mind” is sufficient to render a claim patent eligible.). On the other hand, where the “addition of a machine impose[s] a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim,” and “play[s] a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function[ing] solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e., through the utilization of a computer for performing calculation

"Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor." 35 U.S.C. § 101 ; see alsoFort Properties, Inc. v. American Master Lease, LLC , 671 F.3d 1317, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2012). However, § 101 specifically excludes from patent eligibility laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.

o patents in suit are directed to the conversion of loyalty award points of one vendor into loyalty award points of another. That core idea plainly would not be patentable without more, as it is indistinguishable in principle from the simple and familiar financial or business operations that were at issue in Bilski and CLS Bank, as well as similar financial operations at issue in various Federal Circuit decisions in which the claims were held to be invalid under section 101. SeeAccenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336 (Fed.Cir.2013) (“system for generating tasks to be performed in an insurance organization”); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266 (Fed.Cir.2012) (method for managing a life insurance policy, including generating the policy, calculating fees, and determining the surrender value and investment value of the policy); Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315 (Fed.Cir.2012) (method for processing credit applications); Fort Props., Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC, 671 F.3d 1317 (Fed.Cir.2012) (method for creating a real estate investment instrument adapted for performing tax-deferred exchanges); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed.Cir.2011) (method for verifying the validity of credit card transactions). If anything, the conversion process at the core of the claims in this case is simpler and more commonplace than some of the methods held unpatentable in the cases cited above.

A patent may be granted to “[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,” 35 U.S.C. § 101, unless the idea to be patented is a law of nature, a physical phenomenon, or an abstract idea, Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185, 101 S.Ct. 1048, 67 L.Ed.2d 155 (1981). However, “an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection,” Fort Props., Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC, 671 F.3d 1317, 1321 (Fed.Cir.2012) (quoting Diamond, 450 U.S. at 187, 101 S.Ct. 1048), provided, “the prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘[is not] circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment’ or adding ‘insignificant postsolution activity,’ ” Bilski v. Kappos, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 3230, 177 L.Ed.2d 792 (2010) (quoting Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191–92, 101 S.Ct. 1048). The Federal Circuit has “not presume[d] to define ‘abstract’ beyond the recognition that this disqualifying characteristic should exhibit itself so manifestly as to override the broad statutory categories of eligible subject matter and the statutory context that directs primary attention on the patentability criteria of the rest of the Patent Act.”