`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V.,
`Plaintiff-Appellant
`
`v.
`
`GEMALTO M2M GMBH, GEMALTO INC.,
`GEMALTO IOT LLC, TCL COMMUNICATION
`TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS LIMITED, TCL
`COMMUNICATION, INC., TCT MOBILE (US)
`HOLDINGS, INC., TCT MOBILE (US) INC., TCT
`MOBILE, INC., TELIT WIRELESS SOLUTIONS,
`INC.,
`Defendants-Appellees
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Intervenor
`______________________
`
`2018-1863, 2018-1864, 2018-1865
`______________________
`
`Appeals from the United States District Court for the
`District of Delaware in Nos. 1:17-cv-00086-LPS, 1:17-cv-
`00091-LPS, 1:17-cv-00092-LPS, Chief Judge Leonard P.
`Stark.
`
`______________________
`
`Decided: November 15, 2019
`______________________
`
`ANDRES HEALY, Susman Godfrey LLP, Seattle, WA, ar-
`gued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by HUNTER
`
`

`

`2
`
`KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH
`
`VANCE, ALEXANDRA GISELLE WHITE, Houston, TX;
`LAWRENCE PERLEY COGSWELL, III, Hamilton, Brook, Smith
`& Reynolds, PC, Boston, MA; TIMOTHY JOSEPH MEAGHER,
`Concord, MA.
`
` BRIAN ROSENTHAL, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
`New York, NY, argued for all defendants-appellees and in-
`tervenor. Defendants-appellees Gemalto M2M GmbH, Ge-
`malto Inc., Gemalto IOT LLC, also represented by BRIAN
`ANDREA, Washington, DC.
`
` WILLIAM R. PETERSON, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,
`Houston, TX, for defendants-appellees TCL Communica-
`tion Technology Holdings Limited, TCL Communication,
`Inc., TCT Mobile (US) Holdings, Inc., TCT Mobile (US) Inc.,
` Also represented by JULIE S.
`TCT Mobile, Inc.
`GOLDEMBERG, Philadelphia, PA; BRADFORD CANGRO, HANG
`ZHENG, Washington, DC.
`
` DAVID A. LOEWENSTEIN, Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer
`LLP, New York, NY, for defendant-appellee Telit Wireless
`Solutions, Inc. Also represented by CLYDE SHUMAN, GUY
`YONAY.
`
` CARTER GLASGOW PHILLIPS, Sidley Austin LLP, Wash-
`ington, DC, for intervenor. Also represented by RYAN C.
`MORRIS; PETER H. KANG, Palo Alto, CA.
` ______________________
`
`Before DYK, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
`CHEN, Circuit Judge.
`Plaintiff-Appellant Koninklijke KPN N.V. (KPN) owns
`U.S. Patent No. 6,212,662 (’662 patent). KPN sued Ge-
`malto M2M GmbH, Gemalto Inc., Gemalto IOT LLC, TCL
`Communication Technology Holdings Limited, TCL Com-
`munication, Inc., TCT Mobile, Inc., TCT Mobile (US) Inc.,
`TCT Mobile (US) Holdings, Inc., and Telit Wireless
`
`

`

`KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH
`
`3
`
`Solutions, Inc. (collectively “Appellees”) for infringement of
`the ’662 patent in the United States District Court for the
`District of Delaware. Appellees moved for judgment on the
`pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) al-
`leging that all four claims (claims 1–4) of the ’662 patent
`were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court
`granted Appellees’ motion with respect to all four claims,
`concluding that the claims recite no more than mere ab-
`stract data manipulation operations, such as “reordering
`data and generating additional data.” J.A. 23. On appeal,
`KPN only challenges the district court’s ineligibility deci-
`sion with respect to dependent claims 2–4. As to these ap-
`pealed claims, we reverse. Rather than being merely
`directed to the abstract idea of data manipulation, these
`claims are directed to an improved check data generating
`device that enables a data transmission error detection sys-
`tem to detect a specific type of error that prior art systems
`could not.
`In data transmission systems, it is common to generate
`something called “check data” to check whether data was
`accurately transmitted over a communications channel.
`Check data is generated based on the original data and
`thus serves as a shorthand representation of a particular
`block of data. By comparing the check data generated at
`both ends of the communication channel, error detection
`systems may be able to infer whether errors occurred dur-
`ing transmission. For example, if the check data from both
`ends match, the system infers that the content of the re-
`ceived data block is the same as what was transmitted and
`thus concludes that no errors occurred during transport.
`But, as the ’662 patent recognizes, matching check data
`is not always a reliable indicator of accurate data transmis-
`sions. According to the patent, certain generating func-
`tions coincidentally produce the same check data for a
`corrupted data block and an uncorrupted data block. When
`this happens, the check data is functionally defective, be-
`cause the system will mistakenly believe that there were
`
`

`

`4
`
`KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH
`
`no errors in the data transmission. The problem of defec-
`tive check data is aggravated for a particular type of per-
`sistent error, i.e., “systematic error,” that repeats across
`data blocks in the same way. According to the ’662 patent,
`prior art error detection systems were unable to reliably
`detect systematic errors. Once the prior art system gener-
`ated defective check data for an initial data block with a
`given systematic error, the system would continue to gen-
`erate defective check data for subsequent data blocks with
`the same systematic error, thus allowing these types of er-
`rors to persist in the system.
`The ’662 patent solves this problem by varying the way
`check data is generated by varying the permutation ap-
`plied to different data blocks. Varying the permutation for
`each data block reduces the chances that the same system-
`atic error will produce the same defective check data across
`different data blocks. Claims 2–4 thus replace the prior art
`check data generator with an improved, dynamic check
`data generator that enables increased detection of system-
`atic errors that recur across a series of transmitted data
`blocks. As with other claims we have found to be patent-
`eligible in prior cases, the appealed claims represent a non-
`abstract improvement in the functionality of an existing
`technological process and not simply an abstract idea of
`manipulating data. Accordingly, we reverse the district
`court’s grant of Appellees’ Rule 12(c) motion that claims 2–
`4 are ineligible on the pleadings.
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`In order to physically transmit information over the air
`from a transmitter to a receiver, that information is en-
`coded as a series of electromagnetic pulses representing
`“0s” and “1s” of binary code, packaged into a series of indi-
`vidual data blocks. As the information travels through the
`air, different types of environmental factors may impact
`the transmission of data in different ways. Whereas vari-
`able changes in the environment may cause random errors
`
`

`

`KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH
`
`5
`
`to appear in different data blocks, persistent properties in
`the environment, such as an “interference signal with a
`certain frequency” or “equipment error,” may cause certain
`errors to repeat themselves across each data block in the
`same way. ’662 patent at col. 1, ll. 48–52. This type of
`persistent error, called a “systematic error,” is the focus of
`the ’662 patent.
`A. Prior Art Check Data Generators
`Conventional prior art systems detected errors in data
`transmissions by generating something called “check data”
`(or “supplementary data”). Id. at col. 1, ll. 10–46, col. 3, ll.
`32–33. Check data is a short piece of information that is
`generated from the original data using a generating func-
`tion. Id. at col. 1, ll. 55–56, col. 2, ll. 31–34. As such, check
`data effectively serves as a short-hand representation of
`the content of the original data prior to transmission. Dur-
`ing a data transmission, check data is attached to the orig-
`inal data of each data block as a “redundant” piece of
`information to enable the detection of transmission errors
`by the receiver. Id. at col. 1, ll. 34–37. Since a receiver
`cannot easily tell whether a received transmission has
`been corrupted by looking at the data directly, it uses the
`appended check data as a reference point for determining
`whether errors were introduced during transport. See id.
`at col. 1, ll. 37–46. To do so, the receiver compares the ap-
`pended check data generated based on the original data
`(which we refer to as “d1”) with the check data generated
`based on the received transmission (which we refer to as
`“d2”). Id. at col. 3, ll. 39–41. If check data d1 does not
`match check data d2, the receiver infers that the data used
`to generate check data d2 has changed during transmission
`from the uncorrupted data used to generate check data d1.
`Id. at col. 3, ll. 43–46. This means that errors were intro-
`duced into the original data during transmission. Id. How-
`ever, if check data d1 matches check data d2, the system
`infers that there were no errors. Id. at col. 3, ll. 41–43.
`
`

`

`6
`
`KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH
`
`But a match in check data does not necessarily mean
`that the original data was accurately transmitted. As
`noted by the ’662 patent, “there is always a probability that
`erroneous data are considered to be correct data because
`the [check] data may be correct by coincidence.” Id. at col.
`1, ll. 52–55. That is because check data is “restricted in
`length and therefore a finite number of [check] data can be
`distinguished.” Id. at col. 1, ll. 55–57. As a result, the same
`check data may be generated for a transmission with errors
`and another transmission without. This problem of defec-
`tive check data is aggravated for a particular type of error
`called a “systematic error.” Unlike random errors, system-
`atic errors are “errors that repeat themselves” due to a per-
`sistent property in the channel, such as an “interference
`signal with a certain frequency” or “equipment error.” Id.
`at col. 1, ll. 48–52. According to the ’662 patent, prior art
`methods did not reliably detect systematic errors, which
`“may result in all decompressed data becoming unusable.”
`Id. at col. 1, ll. 47–48, col. 2, ll. 12–16.
`B. Solution of the ’662 Patent
`The inventors of the ’662 patent recognized that the rea-
`son why systematic errors were able to persist undetected
`was because the prior art used the same, or “fixed,” gener-
`ating function to process every block of data. Id. at col. 2,
`ll. 48–50. If a fixed generating function produced defective
`check data for a transmission that was corrupted with a
`given systematic error (e.g., first and fourth bit is errone-
`ous in every data transmission), that fixed generating func-
`tion would likely continue to produce the same defective
`check data every time that systematic error appeared. As
`a result, a “[systematic] error once not recognized as such,
`[wa]s continually not detected.” Id. at col. 1, ll. 57–59.
`To solve the problem of undetected systematic errors in
`the prior art systems, the inventors of the ’662 patent de-
`veloped a method that varies the way check data is gener-
`ated from time to time so that the same defective check
`
`

`

`KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH
`
`7
`
`data does not continue to be produced for the same type of
`persistent systematic error. Id. at col. 2, ll. 42–47. This
`way, “a variable checking function can almost always pre-
`vent the non-detection of repetitive errors.” Id. at col. 2,
`ll. 51–53.
`The ’662 patent discusses different ways of varying the
`way check data is generated to achieve this increased de-
`tection capability. One way is by varying the generating
`function used to produce the check data. For example, “[i]t
`is possible to vary the function completely for every n bits”
`by “loading a new algorithm (function f).” Id. at col. 4, ll.
`56–57. Another way to vary the generated check data is to
`vary the original data before it is fed into the generating
`device. The ’662 patent discusses different ways to accom-
`plish this. In one embodiment, a “random number genera-
`tor” is used that “adds random numbers to the user data.”
`Id. at col. 3, l. 66 – col. 4, l. 2. In another embodiment, the
`original data is varied through “permutation,” which “in-
`terchange[s] the bit position in a data block.” Id. at col. 5,
`ll. 60–61. One example of a permutation may involve the
`following: “bit 1 to position 2, bit 2 to position 4, bit 3 to
`position 1 and bit 4 to position 3.” Id. at col. 5, ll. 60–63.
`Based on this permutation, a data block of “1100” would
`transform into “0101.”
`The appealed claims are limited to this last embodi-
`ment. Given that they all incorporate independent claim
`1, all four claims of the ’662 patent are reproduced below.
`1. A device for producing error checking based on
`original data provided in blocks with each block
`having plural bits in a particular ordered se-
`quence, comprising:
`a generating device configured to generate
`check data; and
`
`

`

`8
`
`KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH
`
`a varying device configured to vary original
`data prior to supplying said original data to
`the generating device as varied data;
`wherein said varying device includes a per-
`mutating device configured to perform a
`permutation of bit position relative to said
`particular ordered sequence for at least
`some of the bits in each of said blocks mak-
`ing up said original data without reorder-
`ing any blocks of original data.
`2. The device according to claim 1, wherein the
`varying device is further configured to modify
`the permutation in time.
`3. The device according to claim 2, wherein the
`varying is further configured to modify the per-
`mutation based on the original data.
`4. The device according to claim 3, wherein the
`permutating device includes a table in which
`subsequent permutations are stored.
`Id. at claims 1–4 (emphases added).
`As recited above, the device of claim 2 varies the way
`check data is generated by applying a different permuta-
`tion to different data blocks. Claim 3, which depends from
`claim 2, further recites how the permutation is modified
`(i.e., “based on the original data”). Claim 4, which depends
`from claim 3, even further specifies that different permu-
`tations are stored in a table. By varying the original data
`supplied to the check data generator in different ways, the
`device of the appealed claims significantly decreases the
`likelihood that defective check data will be generated for
`successive data blocks such that a given systematic error
`would continue to escape detection. See id. at col. 2, ll. 42–
`47.
`
`

`

`KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH
`
`9
`
`DISTRICT COURT’S INELIGIBILITY DECISION
`The district court granted Appellees’ motion for judg-
`ment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) alleging that all
`four claims (claims 1–4) of the ’662 patent are ineligible un-
`der § 101. J.A. 9. Applying the two-step framework laid
`out in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208
`(2014), the district court found all claims of the ’662 patent
`to be ineligible because they are directed to an abstract
`idea and contain no saving inventive concept. Though KPN
`now appeals the ineligibility decision only for dependent
`claims 2–4, the focus of the district court’s analysis was on
`independent claim 1.
`At step one of Alice, the district court found that the
`claims were directed to the “abstract idea of reordering
`data and generating additional data,” likening the asserted
`claims to data manipulation claims found ineligible in Two-
`Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017), RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nin-
`tendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017), Intellectual Ven-
`tures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Intellectual Ventures”), and Digitech Im-
`age Technologies, LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758
`F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014). J.A. 23. Based on these cases,
`the district court explained that the claims of the ’662 pa-
`tent are abstract because they do “not say how data is re-
`ordered, how to use reordered data, how to generate
`additional data, how to use additional data, or even that
`any data is transmitted.” J.A. 8. The district court re-
`peated a similar concern for the dependent claims, explain-
`ing that they do “not say how the permutations are
`modified in time or modified based on the data.” J.A. 24.
`At step two of Alice, the district court entertained the
`possibility that patent-eligible subject matter is recited in
`the specification, but ultimately concluded that the claims
`are ineligible because KPN’s “purported inventive concept
`
`

`

`10
`
`KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH
`
`[was] not captured in the claims.” J.A. 26–27 (emphasis in
`original).
`KPN timely appealed the district court’s ineligibility
`decision with respect to dependent claims 2–4, not inde-
`pendent claim 1.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1295(a)(1).
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`We review the district court’s grant of judgment on the
`pleadings under Rule 12(c) by following the procedural law
`of the regional circuit. Allergan, Inc. v. Athena Cosmetics,
`Inc., 640 F.3d 1377, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Under Third
`Circuit law, we have “plenary review” of the district court’s
`order dismissing KPN’s claims pursuant to Rule 12. Green
`v. Fund Asset Mgmt., L.P., 245 F.3d 214, 220 (3d Cir. 2001).
`Under this standard, we must “view the facts presented in
`the pleadings and the inferences to be drawn therefrom in
`the light most favorable to the . . . non-moving party”
`(KPN) and “affirm the [d]istrict [c]ourt’s judgment only if
`the plaintiffs would not be entitled to relief under any set
`of facts that could be proved.” Id.
`Patent eligibility under § 101 is a question of law that
`may contain underlying issues of fact. Interval Licensing
`LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (cit-
`ing Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
`2018)). We review an ultimate conclusion on patent eligi-
`bility de novo. Id.
`
`DISCUSSION
`Section 101 defines patent-eligible subject matter as
`“any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
`composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
`
`1 KPN states that it “statutorily disclaimed Claim 1
`for reasons unrelated to this appeal.” Appellant’s Br. at 15
`n.5.
`
`

`

`KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH
`
`11
`
`thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. Laws of nature, natural phe-
`nomena, and abstract ideas, however, are not patentable.
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566
`U.S. 66, 70–71 (2012). These categories of subject matter
`have been excluded from patent-eligibility because they
`represent “the basic tools of scientific and technological
`work.” Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics,
`Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013). The “concern that drives
`this exclusionary principle [is] one of pre-emption.” Alice,
`573 U.S. at 216. To determine whether claimed subject
`matter is patent-eligible, we apply the two-step framework
`explained in Alice, id. at 218. First, we “determine whether
`the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible con-
`cept” such as an abstract idea. Id. Second, if so, we “exam-
`ine the elements of the claim to determine whether it
`contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the
`claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.”
`Id. at 221 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72, 80).
`At step one of the Alice framework, we “look at the fo-
`cus of the claimed advance over the prior art to determine
`if the claim’s character as a whole is directed to excluded
`subject matter.” Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV,
`LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quota-
`tion marks omitted). “In cases involving software innova-
`tions, this inquiry often turns on whether the claims focus
`on ‘the specific asserted improvement in computer capabil-
`ities . . . or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an ab-
`stract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a
`tool.’” Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat System, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299,
`1303 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft
`Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal
`quotation marks omitted)). Since Alice, we have found soft-
`ware inventions to be patent-eligible where they have
`made non-abstract improvements to existing technological
`processes and computer technology. See McRO, Inc. v.
`Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313–16
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims directed to a process for lip-
`
`

`

`12
`
`KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH
`
`synching animated characters that used specific rules to
`automate a previously subjective manual process); Enfish,
`822 F.3d at 1337–39 (claims directed to a self-referential
`database that improved the way computers stored and re-
`trieved data in memory); Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1304–06
`(claims directed to generating a security profile that im-
`proved the ability of a computer system to identify poten-
`tially suspicious operations that it could not previously
`identify before); Ancora Techs. Inc. v. HTC America Inc.,
`908 F.3d 1343, 1347–49 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (claims directed to
`storing a verification structure in a part of computer
`memory that is less vulnerable to hacking to improve secu-
`rity against unauthorized use of licensed software).
`An improved result, without more stated in the claim,
`is not enough to confer eligibility to an otherwise abstract
`idea. Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1305 (stating that as a “founda-
`tional patent law principle,” “a result, even an innovative
`result, is not itself patentable”). To be patent-eligible, the
`claims must recite a specific means or method that solves
`a problem in an existing technological process. Compare
`Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1258 (finding claims related to
`wirelessly communicating regional broadcast content were
`directed to an ineligible abstract idea because “nothing in
`claim 1 . . . is directed to how to implement out-of-region
`broadcasting on a cellular telephone”), and Intellectual
`Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims related to email filtering
`were directed to an ineligible abstract idea where there was
`“no restriction on how the result is accomplished” and the
`“mechanism . . . is not described”), with McRO, 837 F.3d at
`1307, 1313–14 (finding claims to be directed to a patent-
`eligible non-abstract improvement in an existing techno-
`logical process because the claims recited “specific” rules
`that allowed automation of a previously manual process of
`lip synching three-dimensional animated characters).
`In accordance with the above precedents, we conclude
`that appealed claims 2–4 of the ’662 patent are patent-
`
`

`

`KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH
`
`13
`
`eligible because they are directed to a non-abstract im-
`provement in an existing technological process (i.e., error
`checking in data transmissions). By requiring that the per-
`mutation applied to original data be modified “in time,”
`claim 2, which is incorporated into all appealed claims, re-
`cites a specific implementation of varying the way check
`data is generated that improves the ability of prior art er-
`ror detection systems to detect systematic errors. See ’662
`patent at col. 2, ll. 51–53.
`This claimed technological improvement is akin to the
`type of non-abstract improvement we found to be patent-
`eligible in Finjan. In Finjan, the claims at issue recited a
`method of providing computer security by generating a “se-
`curity profile” that identifies suspicious code that performs
`“potentially hostile operations.” 879 F.3d at 1303–04. Un-
`like traditional systems that “simply look[ed] for the pres-
`ence of known viruses,” the claimed method was able to
`identify “potentially dangerous or unwanted operations.
`Id. at 1304 (emphases added). Thus, we concluded that the
`claimed method was directed to a “non-abstract improve-
`ment” over the prior art because it employed “a new kind
`of file that enable[d] a computer security system to do
`things it could not do before.” Id. at 1305. Here, as in Fin-
`jan, the claimed invention is also directed to a non-abstract
`improvement because it employs a new way of generating
`check data that enables the detection of persistent system-
`atic errors in data transmissions that prior art systems
`were previously not equipped to detect.
`Appellees argue that the claims are ineligible because
`they fail to recite a last application step that uses the gen-
`erated check data to actually perform error detection. Ac-
`cording to Appellees, without this last step tying the claims
`to a “concrete application,” the claims are doomed to ab-
`straction. Appellees’ Br. at 18–21. We disagree.
`A claim that is directed to improving the functionality
`of one tool (e.g., error checking device) that is part of an
`
`

`

`14
`
`KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH
`
`existing system (e.g., data transmission error detection
`system) does not necessarily need to recite how that tool is
`applied in the overall system (e.g., perform error detection)
`in order to constitute a technological improvement that is
`patent-eligible. Rather, to determine whether the claims
`here are non-abstract, the more relevant inquiry is
`“whether the claims in th[is] patent[ ] focus on a specific
`means or method that improves the relevant technology or
`are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is the
`abstract idea and merely invoke processes and machinery.”
`McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314; cf. Electric Power Group, LLC v.
`Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding
`claims to be directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea be-
`cause “the focus of the claims [wa]s not on such an improve-
`ment in computers as tools, but on certain independently
`abstract ideas that use computers as tools”).
`In the present case, the appealed claims recite a suffi-
`ciently specific implementation (i.e., modifying the permu-
`tation applied to the original data “in time”) of an existing
`tool (i.e., check data generating device) that improves the
`functioning of the overall technological process of detecting
`systematic errors in data transmissions. See McRO, 837
`F.3d at 1313–16; Ancora, 908 F.3d at 1348–49. Im-
`portantly, the claims do not simply recite, without more,
`the mere desired result of catching previously undetectable
`systematic errors, but rather recite a specific solution for
`accomplishing that goal—i.e., by varying the way check
`data is generated by modifying the permutation applied to
`different data blocks. Id. at 1349; Finjan, 879 F.3d at
`1305–06; SAP America Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d
`1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In so doing, the claims suffi-
`ciently capture the inventors’ asserted technical contribu-
`tion to the prior art by reciting how the solution specifically
`improves the function of prior art error detection systems.
`Importantly, Appellees do not dispute that varying the
`way check data is generated provides an improvement to
`an existing technological process. Rather, their main
`
`

`

`KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH
`
`15
`
`argument is that this improvement is not adequately cap-
`tured in the claims because the claims fail to tie the per-
`mutated data with the generation of new check data. Oral
`Arg. at 23:02–32; Appellees’ Br. at 29–34. We disagree.
`The appealed claims require that a “varying device” be
`configured to “vary original data prior to supplying said
`original data to the generating device as varied data,” and
`that the “generating device” be configured to “generate
`check data.” ’662 patent at claim 1 (emphasis added). In a
`“wherein” clause, claim 1 specifies how the original data is
`varied by the varying device: by including a “permutating
`device configured to perform a permutation” on the bits in
`each block making up “said original data.” Id. Thus, con-
`trary to Appellees’ proposed reading, claim 1 logically re-
`quires that original data be varied by permutation before
`being supplied to the generating device as “varied data.”
`Appellees further contend that even if the claims con-
`nect the permutated data with the generation of check
`data, the appealed claims are not directed to a patent-eli-
`gible technological improvement because the specification
`does not mention any technological benefit of using permu-
`tations to generate check data.2 But, even assuming that
`the law required the specification to discuss a technological
`benefit of the purported invention, as Appellees suggest,
`Appellees’ argument still fails because it does not account
`for the specification as a whole. The specification states
`that “a variable checking function,” as opposed to a “normal
`(fixed) checking function,” “can almost always prevent the
`non-detection of repetitive errors.” ’662 patent at col. 2, ll.
`
`2 Though Appellees contend that KPN waived its ar-
`gument that the specification discusses the technological
`benefits of the dependent limitations of claims 2–4, Appel-
`lees’ Br. at 35, we believe that it was adequately preserved
`in KPN’s Opposition Brief to Defendant’s 12(c) motion. See
`J.A. 428–49, 438.
`
`

`

`16
`
`KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH
`
`48–53. In a later section, it states that one way of providing
`a “variation value” is to use “different permutations.” Id.
`at col. 5, l. 65 – col. 6, l. 2. Thus, a review of the specifica-
`tion makes clear that modifying the permutation in time
`provides the technological benefit of preventing non-detec-
`tion of repetitive errors, just like other variable generating
`functions.
`Appellees contend that the district court correctly
`found that the claims on appeal are similar to the abstract
`“data manipulation” claims that we have held to be ineligi-
`ble in prior cases. Appellees’ Br. at 27–29. We disagree.
`While the claims in those cases were arguably related to
`advances in computer technology, none were limited to a
`specific improvement in computer functionality. Absent
`sufficient recitation of how the purported invention im-
`proved the functionality of a computer, the “improvement”
`captured by those claims was recited at such a level of re-
`sult-oriented generality that those claims amounted to a
`mere implementation of an abstract idea on a computer,
`not the specific way to improve the functionality of a com-
`puter. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830
`F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). While the patents in
`these cases may have claimed an improved result in a tech-
`nical field, the claims failed to recite a specific enough so-
`lution to make the asserted technological improvement
`concrete.
`For example, in Digitech, the patented invention pur-
`portedly solved the problem of distortion that occurred
`when translating the display of an image from a source de-
`vice to a different output device. 758 F.3d at 1347–48. The
`claimed solution took various device-dependent infor-
`mation and “combin[ed]” them into a “device profile.” Id.
`at 1351. Though the specification discussed using this de-
`vice profile to correct for device-specific image distortions,
`id. at 1347–48, this asserted improvement in image pro-
`cessing was not specifically captured in the claims. In the
`
`

`

`KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH
`
`17
`
`preamble, the claimed method stated that the “device pro-
`file” was used “for capturing, transforming, or rendering an
`image.” Id. at 1351. But in the body, the claimed method
`failed to explain how the device-dependent information
`was actually used by the recited mathematical correlation
`to accomplish image distortion correction. Id. at 1350–51.
`Absent further elaboration, the claims were too abstract to
`capture the inventors’ purported technical contribution in
`correcting image distortion. As such, the claims amounted
`to no more than “taking existing information . . . and or-
`ganizing this information into a new form.” Id. at 1351.
`In RecogniCorp, the inventors purported to solve the
`problem of encoding images in a way that required “less
`memory and bandwidth.” 855 F.3d at 1324. While the
`claims used an “image code” to reproduce an image based
`on a mathematical operation, id., they did not adequately
`capture the inventors’ asserted technical contribution, be-
`cause the claims recited no more than “standard encoding
`and decoding, an abstract concept long utilized to transmit
`information.” Id. at 1326 (emphasis added). Thus, we
`found that the claims merely amounted to an ineligible ab-
`stract process “for w