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.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions