`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`AUTOMATED TRACKING SOLUTIONS, LLC,
`Plaintiff-Appellant
`
`v.
`
`THE COCA-COLA COMPANY,
`Defendant-Appellee
`______________________
`
`2017-1494
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the
`Northern District of Georgia in No. 1:15-cv-04348-WSD,
`Judge William S. Duffey, Jr.
`______________________
`
`Decided: February 16, 2018
`______________________
`
`
`ROBERT EVAN SOKOHL, Sterne Kessler Goldstein &
`
`Fox, PLLC, Washington, DC, argued
`for plaintiff-
`appellant. Also represented by NIRAV DESAI, LORI A.
`GORDON, PAULINE PELLETIER.
`
`SCOTT J. PIVNICK, Alston & Bird LLP, Washington,
`
`DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
`ALAN SHANE NICHOLS, SIRAJ M. ABHYANKAR, Atlanta, GA.
`______________________
`
`
`

`

`
`
` 2
`
` AUTOMATED TRACKING SOLS., LLC v. THE COCA-COLA CO.
`
`Before MOORE, WALLACH, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
`STOLL, Circuit Judge.
`The Coca-Cola Company moved for judgment on the
`pleadings that Automated Tracking Solutions, LLC’s
`(“ATS’s”) asserted claims are not directed to patent-
`eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (2012). The
`district court granted Coca-Cola’s motion and ATS ap-
`peals. Given the specific facts in the record before us,
`including the patentee’s admissions, we affirm the district
`court’s judgment of ineligibility.
`BACKGROUND
`Dr. Fred H. Sawyer is the founder and owner of ATS
`and the sole named inventor on all four patents ATS
`asserts against Coca-Cola: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,551,089;
`7,834,766; 8,842,013; and 8,896,449 (collectively, “Assert-
`ed Patents”). As defined in ATS’s own complaint, the
`patents are directed to “inventory control.” J.A. 225 ¶ 11;
`see J.A. 225–34 (“Am. Compl.”). ATS argued that, conven-
`tionally, inventory control processes had been performed
`by hand or not all. Id. ¶¶ 11, 12. Dr. Sawyer sought to
`integrate radio frequency identification (“RFID”) technol-
`ogy into these manual processes. To this end, he “de-
`signed and built an operable system for performing
`[inventory control] functions” that was the genesis of the
`Asserted Patents. Id. ¶ 14.
`All four Asserted Patents are titled “Method and Ap-
`paratus for Tracking Objects and People” and share a
`common specification.1 As ATS explains in its complaint,
`
`
`1 The ’013 and ’449 patents are continuations of the
`applications that led to the ’766 patent, which in turn is a
`continuation of the application that led to the ’089 patent.
`For ease of reference, we cite the ’089 patent when dis-
`cussing the common specification.
`
`

`

`AUTOMATED TRACKING SOLS., LLC v. THE COCA-COLA CO.
`
`3
`
`the Asserted Patents relate to processes and systems to
`perform the functions of “identification, tracking, location,
`and/or surveillance of tagged objects anywhere in a facili-
`ty or area.” Id. ¶¶ 14. The common specification states
`that prior art inventory control systems had significant
`drawbacks and that the claimed invention “reduce[s]
`human responsibility” and provides “an automatic locat-
`ing and tracking system.” ’089 patent col. 1 ll. 48, 63.
`To achieve this, Dr. Sawyer incorporated RFID tech-
`nology into his claimed invention. RFID is “a means of
`storing and retrieving data through electromagnetic
`transmission to a radio frequency compatible integrated
`circuit.” Id. at col. 3 ll. 8–10. As to hardware, an RFID
`system could be as simple as just three components: a
`scanner,2 a transponder, and a computer. Id. at col. 3
`ll. 10–12. Indeed, at the time of the invention, various
`companies, including Microchip, SCS, Intermec, and
`Texas Instruments, were already manufacturing RFID
`products and providing a great deal of explanatory mate-
`rial. Id. at col. 3 ll. 5–7. According to the specification,
`the inventions used RFID technology, computer pro-
`gramming, database applications, networking technolo-
`gies, and hardware elements to achieve the stated goal of
`locating, identifying, tracking, and surveilling objects. Id.
`at col. 2 ll. 45–50.
`With this understanding of the common specification,
`we turn to the claims. In a § 101 analysis, courts may
`evaluate representative claims. See Content Extraction &
`Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). To that end, ATS
`identified four representative claims in its Opposition to
`Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings—one
`independent claim to represent each patent: claim 49 of
`
`2 ATS uses “reader” and “scanner” interchangeably.
`See Appellant Br. 5 n.3.
`
`

`

`
`
` 4
`
` AUTOMATED TRACKING SOLS., LLC v. THE COCA-COLA CO.
`
`the ’089 patent; claim 1 of the ’766 patent; claim 1 of the
`’013 patent; and claim 1 of the ’449 patent.3 J.A. 1168–70.
`The district court, however, adopted Coca-Cola’s pro-
`posal to select only two of the above claims as representa-
`tive claims: (1) claim 49 of the ’089 patent to represent the
`claims of the ’089 and ’013 patents; and (2) claim 1 of the
`’766 patent to represent the claims of the ’766 and ’449
`patents. ATS conceded at oral argument that the district
`court’s selection of these two representative claims was
`proper. Oral Arg. at 35:25–32, http://oralarguments.cafc.
`uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=2017-1494.mp3. ATS also
`conceded that the district court’s decision not to analyze
`ATS’s two additional proposed representative claims
`(claim 1 of the ’013 patent and claim 1 of the ’449 patent)
`did not affect the § 101 analysis. Id. at 35:32–42. Accord-
`ingly, we restrict our analysis to the claims ATS agrees
`are representative: claim 49 of the ’089 patent and claim 1
`of the ’766 patent.
`Representative claim 1 of the ’766 patent recites:
`1. A system for locating, identifying and/or track-
`ing of an object, the system comprising:
`a first transponder associated with the ob-
`ject;
`a reader that is configured to receive first
`transponder data via a radio frequency
`(RF) signal from the first transponder;
`
`
`3 ATS’s complaint lists its asserted claims as “in-
`cluding, but not limited to” these four enumerated claims.
`The parties have not disputed that invalidation of these
`four asserted claims—or even the two analyzed claims
`discussed below—would support the district court’s grant
`of judgment on the pleadings in this case.
`
`

`

`AUTOMATED TRACKING SOLS., LLC v. THE COCA-COLA CO.
`
`5
`
`an antenna in communication with the
`reader and having a first coverage area;
`a processor coupled to the reader, wherein
`the processor is configured to receive the
`first transponder data from the reader and
`to generate detection information based on
`the received first transponder data, the
`detection
`information comprising
`first
`sighting and last sighting of the first tran-
`sponder in the first coverage area; and
`a storage device that is configured to store
`the detection information.
`’766 patent col. 20 l. 58 – col. 21 l. 6 (emphases added).4
`The district court granted Coca-Cola’s motion for judg-
`ment on the pleadings that all asserted claims are patent-
`ineligible under § 101. Automated Tracking Sols., LLC v.
`Coca-Cola Co., 223 F. Supp. 3d 1278, 1292 (N.D. Ga.
`2016) (“Ineligibility Op.”) (citing Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS
`Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014)). Under Alice
`step one, the district court concluded that the representa-
`tive claims were directed to the patent-ineligible abstract
`idea of “collecting data, analyzing it, and determining the
`results based on the analysis of data.” Id. at 1289. The
`district court determined under Alice step two that the
`claims lacked an inventive concept because nothing in the
`claim limitations or their ordered combination was suffi-
`cient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible
`application. Id. at 1290. Accordingly, the district court
`held all four patents ineligible under § 101.
`ATS appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
`28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
`
`
`4 For reasons explained below, we do not recite rep-
`resentative claim 49 of the ’089 patent in full here.
`
`

`

`
`
` 6
`
` AUTOMATED TRACKING SOLS., LLC v. THE COCA-COLA CO.
`
`DISCUSSION
`We apply the procedural law of the regional circuit
`when reviewing a district court’s grant of a motion for
`judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil
`Procedure 12(c). Merck & Co. v. Hi–Tech Pharmacal Co.,
`482 F.3d 1317, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Eleventh
`Circuit reviews a grant of judgment on the pleadings de
`novo. Cannon v. City of W. Palm Beach, 250 F.3d 1299,
`1301 (11th Cir. 2001). “Judgment on the pleadings is
`appropriate where there are no material facts in dispute
`and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter
`of law.” Perez v. Wells Fargo N.A., 774 F.3d 1329, 1335
`(11th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation
`omitted). “In determining whether a party is entitled to
`judgment on the pleadings, we accept as true all material
`facts alleged in the non-moving party’s pleading, and we
`view those facts in the light most favorable to the non-
`moving party.” Id. We must deny a judgment on the
`pleadings if a comparison of the averments in the compet-
`ing pleadings reveals a material dispute of fact. Id.
`Patent eligibility under § 101 is a question of law that
`may contain underlying issues of fact. See Berkheimer v.
`HP Inc., No. 2017-1437, 2018 WL 774096, at *5 (Fed. Cir.
`Feb. 8, 2018) (citing Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice
`Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
`We review the district court’s ultimate conclusion on
`patent eligibility de novo. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC
`v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1338 (Fed. Cir.
`2017). We look to the test articulated in Alice to deter-
`mine whether a claim is eligible for patenting under
`§ 101. See 134 S. Ct. at 2355. Pursuant to Alice’s two-
`part test, we decide first “whether the claims at issue are
`directed to” a patent-ineligible concept, namely a law of
`nature, natural phenomena, or abstract idea. Id. at 2354–
`55. If the answer is yes, we then consider the claim
`elements, both individually and as an ordered combina-
`tion, to determine whether they contain an “inventive
`
`

`

`AUTOMATED TRACKING SOLS., LLC v. THE COCA-COLA CO.
`
`7
`
`concept” sufficient to “‘transform the nature of the claim’
`into a patent-eligible application.” Id. at 2355 (quoting
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`566 U.S. 66, 72–73, 78 (2012)).
`This case reminds us that we are a “court of review,
`not of first view.” Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 718
`n.7 (2005). As a general rule, we cannot consider claims
`and arguments that were not presented to the district
`court. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120 (1976).
`As discussed above, ATS limited its eligibility arguments
`to certain representative independent claims, agreeing
`that eligibility of the remaining claims would stand and
`fall with those representative claims. See In re Kaslow,
`707 F.2d 1366, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Thus, we must
`confine our review to these representative claims.
`I
`The Alice step-one analysis requires us to consider the
`claims “in their entirety to ascertain whether their char-
`acter as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.”
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d
`1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015). On their face, the repre-
`sentative claims are directed to systems “for locating,
`identifying and/or tracking of” an object using RFID
`components. ’766 patent, claim 1; ’089 patent, claim 49.
`The common specification further describes the back-
`ground of the invention as related to “locating and track-
`ing” objects, and that the claimed invention “reduce[s]
`human responsibility” and provides “an automatic locat-
`ing and tracking system.” ’089 patent col. 1 l. 15 – col. 2
`l. 22. As discussed further below, the claims achieve this
`by collecting data from sensors, analyzing that data, and
`determining results based on the analysis of data. For
`the reasons that follow, we conclude that the claims are
`directed to an abstract idea under Alice step one.
`ATS’s primary argument is that the representative
`claims are analogous to the patent-eligible claims in
`
`

`

`
`
` 8
`
` AUTOMATED TRACKING SOLS., LLC v. THE COCA-COLA CO.
`
`Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed.
`Cir. 2017). There, the claims recited a system for tracking
`the motion of an object relative to a moving reference
`frame, comprising inertial sensors mounted on the
`tracked object and the moving reference frame, and a
`third element to receive the sensors’ signals and deter-
`mine the orientation of the object. See id. at 1345–46. We
`found the claims patent-eligible under Alice step one
`because they were “directed to systems and methods that
`use inertial sensors in a non-conventional manner to
`reduce errors in measuring the relative position and
`orientation of a moving object on a moving reference
`frame.” Id. at 1348–49; see id. at 1347 (explaining that
`claims that function differently from “conventional”
`technologies may be found non-abstract under step one
`and citing Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327,
`1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
`ATS argues that, like the claimed arrangement of
`sensors in Thales, the claims here “specify a particular
`configuration for using the electromagnetically transmit-
`ted data to more accurately and systematically determine
`the location, identity, and movement of transponders
`among antenna coverage areas using specially pro-
`grammed readers, storage devices, and processors config-
`ured to perform those functions.” Appellant Br. 42
`(emphases added). Our problem with ATS’s argument
`does not lie with its contention that claims directed to
`specialized components of an RFID system or a special-
`ized arrangement of components in an RFID system
`should be patent-eligible. Rather, our concerns lie with
`ATS’s portrayal of the breadth of the representative
`claims. The representative claims simply do not require a
`particular configuration or arrangement of RFID system
`components. Nor do the representative claims require
`multiple antenna coverage areas. Some of the dependent
`claims may well recite such elements, but our review is
`limited to the representative claims.
`
`

`

`AUTOMATED TRACKING SOLS., LLC v. THE COCA-COLA CO.
`
`9
`
`For example, representative claim 1 of the ’766 patent
`is directed to an RFID system that detects and stores
`transponder IDs and associated detection information to
`determine the “first sighting and last sighting of the first
`transponder in the first coverage area.” ’766 patent
`col. 20 l. 57 – col. 21 l. 6 (claim 1). The system comprises
`just a few elements: an antenna with a first coverage
`area, a first transponder, a reader, a processor, and a
`storage device. The claim does not recite any “particular
`configuration” or specialized arrangement of the RFID
`system components. It does not specify the relative
`location of the claimed components. It only requires a
`single antenna, and does not specify a particular configu-
`ration for the antenna to achieve the allegedly more
`systematic determination of the location, identity, and
`movement of the transponders. See Appellant Br. 42. At
`oral argument, ATS even conceded that all RFID anten-
`nas have coverage areas, and that the claimed antenna in
`representative claim 1 does not differ from conventional
`RFID antennas in that regard. Oral Arg. at 6:23–50. For
`these reasons, we conclude that claim 1 of the ’766 patent
`is directed to an abstract idea under Alice step one.
`As to the second representative claim, claim 49 of the
`’089 patent, ATS concedes that it does not claim a “cover-
`age area.” Oral Arg. at 6:23–50. Nor does claim 49 recite
`any additional elements beyond those found to be directed
`to an abstract idea under our analysis of claim 1 of the
`’766 patent. We thus conclude that claim 49 is also di-
`rected to an abstract idea under Alice step one. Given the
`record and ATS’s concession that the two claims analyzed
`by the district court are representative of all the claims in
`all four patents, we do not see any error in the district
`court’s conclusion that the asserted claims are directed to
`an abstract idea.
`
`

`

`
`
` 10
`
` AUTOMATED TRACKING SOLS., LLC v. THE COCA-COLA CO.
`
`II
`Under the second step of the Alice analysis, we exam-
`ine the claim limitations “more microscopically,” Electric
`Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354
`(Fed. Cir. 2016), to determine whether they contain
`“additional features” sufficient to “‘transform the nature
`of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice,
`134 S. Ct. at 2355, 2357 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78).
`“Mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is
`insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise
`abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more
`than performance of well-understood, routine, conven-
`tional activit[ies] previously known to the industry.” In re
`TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016) (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (internal quota-
`tions omitted)).
`Our analysis of the representative claims here uncov-
`ers no inventive concept in the individual claim limita-
`tions or their ordered combination. The representative
`claims are quite broad, reciting uses of RFID system
`components recognized in the specification to be routine
`and conventional. The claims do not use these conven-
`tional RFID components in a non-conventional combina-
`tion or arrangement. Instead, the claims merely disclose
`collecting data from a particular source—RFID tran-
`sponders—and analyzing that data. Whether we view the
`claim elements individually or as an ordered combination,
`the claims do not contain an inventive concept sufficient
`to confer patent eligibility.
`ATS argues that, at the time of the invention, RFID
`was a developing technology and that the district court
`erred in resolving a disputed fact question—whether the
`claims recite routine and conventional uses of an RFID
`system—in Coca-Cola’s favor. We have held that “wheth-
`er a claim element or combination of elements is well-
`understood, routine and conventional to a skilled artisan
`
`

`

`AUTOMATED TRACKING SOLS., LLC v. THE COCA-COLA CO.
`
`11
`
`in the relevant field is a question of fact.” Berkheimer,
`2018 WL 774096, at *5. Furthermore, we must accept all
`plausible factual allegations in ATS’s complaint as true.
`See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d
`1089, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2016). But the complaint alleges
`nothing to support ATS’s contention that RFID was a
`developing technology. See generally Am. Compl. Nor
`does the complaint allege that any of the hardware com-
`ponents in the representative claims—either alone or in
`combination as a system—are anything but well-
`understood, routine, and conventional. See id.
`Nor does the specification support ATS’s contention
`that there is a factual dispute regarding whether the
`claims recite routine and conventional RFID components.
`We acknowledge that the specification states that “the
`RFID technology employed by the present invention is a
`rapidly developing technology.” ’089 patent col. 3 ll. 4–5.
`But the specification also more pointedly indicates that
`the recited components of the claimed RFID system were
`conventional. Id. at col. 3 ll. 4–5, 10–12. Indeed, the
`specification states that a conventional “simple RFID
`system may be composed of three components: a scanner,
`a transponder, and a computer.” Id. at col. 3 ll. 10–12.
`These are the same conventional components recited in
`the representative claims. On the record before us, it was
`not improper for the district court to conclude that the
`claims were ineligible on the pleadings. The complaint at
`issue has no allegations, which when accepted as true,
`would even create a factual issue, and ATS’s specification
`indicates that the components of the claimed invention
`are conventional.
`Because representative claim 49 of the ’089 patent is
`broader than representative claim 1, we conclude that it
`also does not add an inventive concept under Alice step
`two. Given the record and ATS’s concession that the two
`claims analyzed by the district court are representative of
`all the claims in all four patents, we do not see any error
`
`

`

`
`
` 12
`
` AUTOMATED TRACKING SOLS., LLC v. THE COCA-COLA CO.
`
`in the district court’s conclusion that the asserted claims
`do not possess an inventive concept sufficient to confer
`patent eligibility. Nor do we see any error in the district
`court’s ultimate conclusion that the asserted claims are
`directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under § 101.
`CONCLUSION
`We have considered ATS’s remaining arguments and
`find them unpersuasive. Our analysis in this appeal rests
`heavily on ATS’s selection of representative claims and
`admissions in oral argument. On these unique facts, we
`affirm the district court’s grant of Coca-Cola’s motion for
`judgment on the pleadings that the asserted claims of
`ATS’s Asserted Patents are ineligible under § 101 because
`they are directed to unpatentable subject matter.
`AFFIRMED
`COSTS
`
`
`
`Costs to Appellee.
`
`