United States: Federal Circuit Rules That Patents Directed To Collecting And Filtering Network Data Are Eligible, Further Refining Alice/Mayo Test

Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., No. 2015-1180 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2016)

In a recent case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit revisited the vexing problem of assessing patent eligibility for computer-related technologies. The court ruled that four patents claiming systems and methods used to collect data from a network and filtering and aggregating the data for use in billing for Internet communication services all claimed eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed inventions were not directed to abstract ideas and, in any event, recited inventive concepts. The case may signal a broadening of the eligibility rationale adopted by the court in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, LP, 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and suggests strategies for drafting patent applications to address anticipated eligibility issues.


Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia alleging that Openet Telecom, Inc. and other defendants infringed four patents: U.S. No. 7,631,065, U.S. Patent No. 7,412,510, U.S. Patent No. 6,947,984, and U.S. Patent No. 6,836,797. The patents all describe and claim distributed systems of software and components operating over a computer network that solve the accounting and billing problem faced by network service providers in charging users for services based on their amount and type of network usage. For example, the'065 patent is directed to "a system, method, and computer program for merging data in a network-based filtering and aggregating platform as well as a related apparatus for enhancing networking accounting data records." Slip op. at 3.

Following the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the district court granted Openet's motion for judgment on the pleadings, ruling that the asserted claims in the four patents were patent-ineligible abstract ideas. Amdocs appealed to the Federal Circuit.

Federal Circuit Rules that Patents Are Eligible

In a divided panel opinion written by Senior Circuit Judge Plager, the appeals court reversed the district court and ruled that all four Amdocs patents claimed eligible subject matter under Section 101.

The court applied the now-familiar Alice/Mayo framework for assessing patent-eligibility to each of the Amdocs patents. Under that framework, if the claims at issue recite a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, the court determines in a first step whether they are directed to a judicially-established exception, such an as abstract idea, natural phenomenon, or law of nature. In that event, the court performs a second step of dissecting 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." Slip op. at 8 (quotation omitted).

As to the first step of the Alice/Mayo framework, the appeals court noted that although a court must identify whether the claims at issue are directed to an abstract idea, "a search for a single test or definition in the decided cases concerning § 101 from this court, and indeed from the Supreme Court, reveals that at present there is no such single, succinct, usable definition or test." Slip op. at 9. Rather than attempting to fashion a working definition for an abstract idea, the court compared the technology claimed in the Amdocs patents with the inventions in earlier cases considering whether patents were directed to abstract ideas. The cases discussed included Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014); In re TLI Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016); DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257; and BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

Turning first to the '065 patent, the court concluded that the claimed invention was not directed to an abstract idea. The court noted that the claims were "much closer" to those in BASCOM and DDR Holdings, where the court found that the claimed inventions were not abstract ideas, than to those in Digitech, Content Extraction, and In re TLI Commc'ns, where the claims were found to be abstract.

An important issue in the majority decision was the court's construction of the claimed invention. In an earlier appeal, a different Federal Circuit panel had relied on the patent specifications in construing the claims to require a "number of field enhancements in a distributed fashion." The court noted that the distributed enhancement was an "unconventional technological solution" to a technical problem, and thus was not an abstract idea:

As explained by the patent, this distributed enhancement was a critical advancement over the prior art. . . .  [T]his claim entails an unconventional technological solution (enhancing data in a distributed fashion) to a technological problem (massive record flows which previously required massive databases). The solution requires arguably generic components, including network devices and "gatherers" which "gather" information. However, the claim's enhancing limitation necessarily requires that these generic components operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality.

Slip op, at 22. Unlike the claims found to be abstract in other cases, including Digitech, the appeals court noted that the claims of the '065 patent were:

[T]ied to a specific structure of various components (network devices, gatherers, ISMs, a central event manager, a central database, a user interface server, and terminals or clients). It is narrowly drawn to not preempt any and all generic enhancement of data in a similar system, and does not merely combine the components in a generic manner, but instead purposefully arranges the components in a distributed architecture to achieve a technological solution to a technological problem specific to computer networks.

Slip op. at 24. In addition, the court noted that even if the '065 claims were considered to be abstract, they would be eligible under the second step of the Alice/Mayo framework because the claims recite a sufficient "inventive concept." "[E]ven though the system in the '065 patent relies upon some arguably generic limitations, when all limitations are considered individually and as an ordered combination, they provide an inventive concept through the use of distributed architecture." Id. at 25. Thus, the court found that the '065 patent claimed inventions that were patent-eligible.

The court then applied the Alice/Mayo framework to the three other Amdocs patents with similar results. For example, in connection with the '510 patent, the court used an approach announced in BASCOM by passing over step one of the Alice/Mayo test, and ruling that regardless if the claims were directed to an abstract idea in Alice/Mayo step one, the claims satisfied step two. It noted that the claims' recited steps of:

[C]ollection, filtering, aggregating, and completing (including enhancing) steps all depend upon the system's unconventional distributed architecture. While some individual limitations arguably may be generic, others are unconventional and the ordered combination of these limitations yields an inventive concept sufficient to confer eligibility without undue preemption. The claim recites a technological solution to a technological problem specific to computer networks—an unconventional solution that was an improvement over the prior art. The claim is therefore more similar to the eligible claims in DDR Holdings and BASCOM than the ineligible claims in Digitech, Content Extraction, and In re TLI Commc'ns.

Slip op. at 28. Thus, the court reversed the district court's judgment of invalidity as to all patents.

In a dissenting opinion, Circuit Judge Reyna raised two primary objections to the majority's approach. First, he criticized the majority's application of the Alice/Mayo framework. He argued that the majority approach was contrary to the Supreme Court cases, because it "avoids determining whether the asserted claims are directed to an abstract idea, or even identifying what the underlying abstract idea is." Rather than determining whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea by comparing and contrasting the claims to other cases, Reyna proposed a specific test:

Based on the Supreme Court's use of the abstract idea exception, it is apparent that a desired goal (i.e., a "result or effect"), absent structural or procedural means for achieving that goal, is an abstract idea. Not every abstract idea is naturally phrased as a goal, and indeed, the Supreme Court has treated somewhat disparate ideas, such a "mathematical formula," Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71 (1972), and a "fundamental economic practice," Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010), under the abstract idea rubric. Nevertheless, long-standing Supreme Court precedent clearly establishes that a desired goal without means for achieving that goal is an abstract idea.

Dissent, at 6-7. Based on that working definition, Reyna argued that the claims of the '065,' 984, and '797 patents were ineligible, but that the '510 patent was patent-eligible. Writing for the majority, Judge Plager dismissed Judge Reyna's proposed test for abstractness, stating that, "We commend the dissent for seeking a creative way of incorporating aspects of well-known doctrine in the search for what is an 'abstract idea,' but that is not now the law, either in statute or in court decision."

Second, Judge Reyna argued that the majority's eligibility analysis was erroneous because it relied on a construction of the claimed inventions that relied on statements in the specification, not language in the claims:

The majority also relies on the specification to import innovative limitations into the claims at issue. For each of the four patents at issue, the majority's eligibility determination rests on the use of a "distribution architecture." . . . [H]owever, this limitation is insufficient to satisfy Alice step two. Indeed, that limitation does not exist in all of the claims at issue. This contravenes the fundamental principal that the section 101 inquiry is about whether the claims are directed to a patent-eligible invention, not whether the specification is so directed.

Dissent, at 2.

Practical Significance:

The Amdocs decision is likely to assist patentees arguing that claims directed to systems and processes implemented in computer environments are eligible under Section 101, even if the claims recite mainly software and components known in the art. The case joins DDR Holdings and BASCOM as finding such an invention to be eligible if it provides a technological solution to a technological problem specific to the computer environment, and thereby improves the computer's function or operation.

The Amdocs decision reinforces the point that it is essential for patentees to clearly articulate a technical problem in the specification and to demonstrate that the claimed invention provides a technical solution to the noted problem.

The Amdocs patents were notable because the specifications contained a detailed description of the technical aspects of the inventions and how they specifically related to the technical problem that the inventions solved. The Federal Circuit relied on the extensive disclosure of a distributed solution in identifying the claimed invention. The case is an example of the value of "selling the invention" in the specification, and shows that the effort invested in stressing the technical advantages of the invention may be rewarded in any Alice/Mayo eligibility analysis.

Furthermore, Amdocs demonstrates that even though the claimed elements each may be separately known in the art, a software invention may be patent-eligible so long as the ordered combination of the claimed elements provides an inventive concept. That is, the invention is patent-eligible if the ordered combination of elements provides something more than routine or conventional aspects in the computer, and an improvement can be directly linked to the ordered combination. Amdocs requires an analysis into how the claimed features are arranged in combination and whether the ordered combination of claimed elements as a whole provides something that is inventive in view of a technical problem.

Finally, as in BASCOM, the Amdocs decision suggests that if the ordered combination of recited elements constitutes an inventive concept, then a court need not resolve whether the claim is directed to an abstract idea or other judicially-excluded subject matter. In other words, the Alice/Mayo steps may be applied in either order.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.