Case: 22-2215 Document: 45 Page: 1 Filed: 03/29/2024
`
`
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`BLUEBONNET INTERNET MEDIA SERVICES,
`LLC,
`Plaintiff-Appellant
`
`v.
`
`PANDORA MEDIA, LLC,
`Defendant-Appellee
`______________________
`
`2022-2215
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the
`Northern District of California in No. 3:21-cv-08294-VC,
`Judge Vince Chhabria.
`______________________
`
`Decided: March 29, 2024
`______________________
`
`ROBERT R. BRUNELLI, Sheridan Ross PC, Denver, CO,
`argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by BRIAN
`BOERMAN; BRIAN ANDREW CARPENTER, Cole Schotz P.C.,
`Dallas, TX; GEORGE THEODORE SCOTT, WALTER JAMES
`SCOTT, JR., Scott Law Group LLP, Evergreen, CO.
`
` BRYAN ALEXANDER KOHM, Fenwick & West LLP, San
`Francisco, CA, argued for defendant-appellee. Also
`
`

`

`Case: 22-2215 Document: 45 Page: 2 Filed: 03/29/2024
`
`2
`
`BLUEBONNET INTERNET MEDIA SERVICES, LLC v.
`PANDORA MEDIA, LLC
`
`represented by JESSICA L. BENZLER; JONATHAN THOMAS
`MCMICHAEL, Seattle, WA.
`______________________
`
`Before PROST, STOLL, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
`STARK, Circuit Judge.
`Bluebonnet Internet Media Services, LLC (“Bluebon-
`net”) appeals the judgment of the United States District
`Court for the Northern District of California (“Northern
`District”) that all asserted claims of its U.S. Patent Nos.
`9,405,753 (“’753 patent”), 9,547,650 (“’650 patent”), and
`9,779,095 (“’095 patent”) are directed to nonpatentable
`subject matter. Bluebonnet also asks us to reconsider our
`prior decision to issue a writ of mandamus and order this
`case to be transferred from the Western District of Texas
`(“Western District”). We find that the patents are directed
`to an abstract idea and do not contain an inventive concept,
`rendering the patents ineligible and the issue of forum
`transfer moot. Accordingly, we affirm.
`I
`Bluebonnet filed suit in the Western District against
`Pandora Media, LLC (“Pandora”) alleging infringement of
`certain claims of the ’753, ’650, and ’095 patents. Repre-
`sentative claim 1 of the ’753 patent recites:
`A system comprising:
`a playback interface executing on an
`internet enabled multimedia computing
`platform including:
`a media player that plays me-
`dia resources delivered over the In-
`ternet from a remote server, and
`a streaming media clips rating
`system that receives a rating when
`a user enters a rating selection by
`
`

`

`Case: 22-2215 Document: 45 Page: 3 Filed: 03/29/2024
`
`BLUEBONNET INTERNET MEDIA SERVICES, LLC v.
`PANDORA MEDIA, LLC
`
`3
`
`using one or more of an icon or dis-
`play feature of the playback inter-
`face, and signals, via the Internet,
`the rating to a rating component;
`and
`a rating system including:
`a database management com-
`ponent that maintains an organiza-
`tional data structure that describes
`rating information for the media
`resources,
`the rating component receives,
`via the Internet, the rating from
`the streaming media clips rating
`system and modifies rating infor-
`mation in the organizational data
`structure at least based on the rat-
`ing; and
`a play-list generator adapted to auto-
`matically and dynamically generate at
`least one play-list based on rating infor-
`mation in the organizational data struc-
`ture, wherein the play-list comprises
`identifiers of one or more media resources
`selected based on the rating information,
`wherein the media resources are played
`back on the media player.
`’753 patent at 38:41-65.
`Pandora’s motion to transfer the case from the Western
`District was originally denied, but we later granted Pan-
`dora’s mandamus petition and ordered the case to be trans-
`ferred to the Northern District. Thereafter, Pandora
`moved for judgment on the pleadings, which the judge in
`the Northern District granted. The court found that while
`the asserted “claims may capture the core of a good
`
`

`

`Case: 22-2215 Document: 45 Page: 4 Filed: 03/29/2024
`
`4
`
`BLUEBONNET INTERNET MEDIA SERVICES, LLC v.
`PANDORA MEDIA, LLC
`
`business idea,” “they are directed to an abstract idea and
`lack an inventive concept – and are therefore invalid” un-
`der 35 U.S.C. § 101. J.A. 27. Bluebonnet timely appealed.1
`II
`We evaluate subject matter eligibility using the two-
`step Alice test. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S.
`208 (2014). “First, we determine whether the claims at is-
`sue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, such as an
`abstract idea,” and, second, we “determine whether [the
`claim] contains an inventive concept sufficient to transform
`the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible applica-
`tion.” Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co., 935
`F.3d 1341, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks
`omitted). “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts
`to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea
`‘on . . . a computer,’ that addition cannot impart patent el-
`igibility.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (internal citation omitted).
`“We review procedural aspects of the grant of judgment
`on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`12(c) based on the law of the regional circuit,” which here
`is the Ninth Circuit. Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Ca-
`ble Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`In the Ninth Circuit, “[d]ismissal for failure to state a claim
`is reviewed de novo. Factual allegations in the complaint
`are taken as true and all reasonable inferences are drawn
`in the plaintiff’s favor.” Barrett v. Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060,
`1061 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted).
`III
`At Alice step one, the district court found that Bluebon-
`net’s claims were directed to the abstract idea of
`
`
`1 The district court had subject-matter jurisdiction
`under 28 U.S.C. § 1338. We have jurisdiction under 28
`U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
`
`

`

`Case: 22-2215 Document: 45 Page: 5 Filed: 03/29/2024
`
`BLUEBONNET INTERNET MEDIA SERVICES, LLC v.
`PANDORA MEDIA, LLC
`
`5
`
`“customizing a product according to a customer’s likes and
`dislikes,” applied “to the somewhat narrower context of
`computer-based media playlists.” J.A. 28. We agree with
`the district court. Our precedent establishes that these
`types of methods of organizing digital media – which is
`what creating playlists based on user feedback is – are ab-
`stract ideas. See, e.g., In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A]ttaching classifica-
`tion data, such as dates and times, to images for the pur-
`pose of storing those images in an organized manner is a
`well-established ‘basic concept’ sufficient to fall under Al-
`ice step 1.”). And it is well-settled that “merely adding com-
`puter functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the
`process,” as the claims asserted here do, “does not confer
`patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.” Intell.
`Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363,
`1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`At step two, we further agree with the district court
`that the claims lack any inventive concept. As the trial
`court stated, the claims “describe only the basic steps of
`streaming media, rating media, generating a playlist, and
`sharing a playlist.” J.A. 29. The claims do not, for in-
`stance, provide a new algorithm or method for creating
`playlists. Indeed, as the district court pointed out, the in-
`ventors “acknowledged that [they] did not invent stream-
`ing media, playlists or media players.” J.A. 29 (internal
`quotation marks omitted). Nor do the claims “require[] an-
`ything other than conventional computer and network
`components operating according to their ordinary func-
`tions.” Two-Way Media Ltd., 874 F.3d at 1339.
`Contrary to Bluebonnet’s contentions, the district court
`was not required to accept as true allegations in the com-
`plaint that are conclusory, state legal conclusions, or con-
`tradict the patent itself. Even accepting Bluebonnet’s
`assertion that four or five different components are re-
`quired to practice the asserted claims – a contention we do
`not endorse, as it amounts to an untimely request for claim
`
`

`

`Case: 22-2215 Document: 45 Page: 6 Filed: 03/29/2024
`
`6
`
`BLUEBONNET INTERNET MEDIA SERVICES, LLC v.
`PANDORA MEDIA, LLC
`
`construction2 – the sheer number of conventional computer
`components employed, without more, does not constitute
`an inventive concept. See, e.g., Yu v. Apple Inc., 1 F.4th
`1040, 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (holding that “claimed configu-
`ration does not add sufficient substance to the underlying
`abstract
`idea” where
`“generic hardware
`limita-
`tions . . . merely serve as a conduit for the abstract idea”)
`(internal quotation marks omitted).
`We have considered Bluebonnet’s other arguments and
`find them unpersuasive.3 For the reasons stated above, we
`affirm the district court’s decision.
`AFFIRMED
`
`
`2 Claim construction proceedings were held in the
`Western District. After transfer to the Northern District,
`and during briefing on Pandora’s Rule 12(c) motion, Blue-
`bonnet argued that the Western District’s constructions
`were correct and that no further claim construction need
`be undertaken.
`3 Given our affirmance of the unpatentability deter-
`mination, Bluebonnet’s dissatisfaction with the transfer of
`venue is moot. We note, however, that any challenge to
`venue has to be raised first in the district court. Here,
`Bluebonnet did not move in the Northern District to trans-
`fer the case back to the Western District. Nor does it ask
`us to dismiss or remand this appeal to allow it to do so now.
`
`