Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd. v. Google LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: May 2, 2025
• Docket: 24-1003
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-1003 Document: 54 Page: 1 Filed: 05/02/2025

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

GOOGLE LLC, APPLE INC., Defendants-Appellees ______________________

2024-1003, 2024-1018 ______________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Nos. 1:22-cv-01331-MSN- JFA, 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA, Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff. ______________________

Decided: May 2, 2025 ______________________

TIMOTHY GILMAN, Schulte Roth & Zabel, LLP, New York, NY, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by CHRISTOPHER GERSON.

BRIAN ROSENTHAL, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY, argued for all defendants-appellees. De- fendant-appellee Apple Inc. also represented by VIVIAN LU; BRIAN M. BUROKER, Washington, DC; JAYSEN CHUNG, San Francisco, CA; BLAINE H. EVANSON, NATHANIEL RYAN Case: 24-1003 Document: 54 Page: 2 Filed: 05/02/2025

SCHARN, Irvine, CA; JULIA G. TABAT, Dallas, TX.

ADAM HARBER, Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee Google LLC. Also represented by DEBMALLO SHAYON GHOSH, XUN LIU, ADAM PAN, ANDREW V. TRASK. ______________________

Before HUGHES, MAYER, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd. (“Geoscope”) appeals final judgments of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia holding that several claims of its asserted patents were directed to patent ineligible sub- ject matter. See Geoscope Techs. Pte. Ltd. v. Google LLC, 692 F. Supp. 3d 566 (E.D. Va. 2023) (“Google Decision”); Geoscope Techs. Pte. Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 1:22-cv-01373- MSN-JFA, 2023 WL 6120604 (E.D. Va. Sept. 18, 2023) (“Apple Decision”). For the reasons discussed below, we af- firm. I. BACKGROUND Geoscope owns patents related to determining the lo- cation of mobile devices. At issue in this appeal are claims 1 and 32 of U.S. Patent No. 8,406,753 (the “’753 patent”), claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 7,561,104 (the “’104 patent”), claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 8,400,358 (the “’358 patent”), and claims 4 and 26 of U.S. Patent No. 8,786,494 (the “’494 patent”) (collectively, the “asserted claims”). 1 Claim 1 of the ’753 patent recites:

1 The ’104, ’358, and ’494 patents share substantially identical specifications and are referred to collectively as the “’104 patent family.” Case: 24-1003 Document: 54 Page: 3 Filed: 05/02/2025

GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD. v. GOOGLE LLC 3

1. A method of determining the location of a mo- bile device in a geographic region comprising the steps of: (a) providing calibration data for each of one or more calibration points in a geographic region, said calibration data having one or more characterizing parameters; (b) generating one or more sets of grid points for said calibration data; (c) receiving at least one network measurement re- port from a mobile device at an unknown location in said geographic region; (d) evaluating said at least one network measure- ment report with each of said sets of grid points as a function of select ones of said characterizing pa- rameters; (e) selecting a set of grid points as a function of a predetermined criteria; and (f) determining the location of a mobile device in said geographic region as a function of said selected set of grid points. ’753 patent, col. 59 ll. 14–31. Claims 1 and 2 of the ’104 patent recite: 1. A method for determining a location of a mobile station, comprising: providing a database of previously-gathered cali- bration data for a predetermined region in a wire- less network, wherein said network includes a first transmitter and a second transmitter; collecting observed network measurement data in- cluding a first signal characteristic from said first Case: 24-1003 Document: 54 Page: 4 Filed: 05/02/2025

transmitter and a second signal characteristic from said second transmitter; determining which of said first and second signal characteristics has a greater magnitude; modifying said observed network measurement data using the greater magnitude signal character- istic; and comparing said modified network measurement data with said database of calibration data to thereby determine the location of the mobile sta- tion. 2. The method of claim 1 wherein said database comprises previously-gathered calibration data for one or more non-uniform grid points within said re- gion. ’104 patent, col. 11 l. 66–col. 12 l. 18. Geoscope brought separate infringement actions against Apple Inc. (“Apple”) and Google LLC (“Google”) in 2022. In July 2023, the district court issued a claim con- struction order—applicable to both actions—which con- strued the term “grid point” to mean “a point associated with representative calibration data for an area,” J.A. 2752, and the term “calibration data” to mean “modified or unmodified network measurement data associated with a geographic location,” J.A. 2740. On September 18, 2023, the court granted the motions filed by Google and Apple for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the asserted claims were patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 2 Applying the two-step framework

2 Geoscope’s original complaints included allega- tions of infringement of claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,320,264 and U.S. Patent No. 9,097,784. Only the ’753 patent and Case: 24-1003 Document: 54 Page: 5 Filed: 05/02/2025

GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD. v. GOOGLE LLC 5

set out in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 218–26 (2014), the court held that the asserted claims of the ’753 patent were “directed to the abstract idea of de- termining an unknown location by comparing information about known locations organized in a database against measurements from a mobile device,” Google Decision, 692 F. Supp. 3d at 581, and failed to disclose “a new source or type of information, or new techniques for analyzing it,” id. at 583 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 3 The court likewise determined that the asserted claims of the ’104 patent family were patent ineligible. In the court’s view, these claims were all “linked to the same ab- stract idea of data collection, modification, and analysis,” id. at 575 (internal quotation marks omitted), and there were no “claim elements that amount[ed] to significantly more than the abstract idea of determining location based on data,” id. at 580 (internal quotation marks omitted). Geoscope then appealed to this court. 4 We have juris- diction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). II. DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review This court reviews a district court’s decision to grant judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) under the law of the appropriate re- gional circuit. Nat. Alternatives Int’l, Inc. v. Creative

the ’104 patent family are at issue in this appeal. See J.A. 2937–41, 2942–47. 3 Because the Google Decision and the Apple Deci- sion are substantively similar, we cite only to the Google Decision. 4 Geoscope separately appealed the Google Decision and the Apple Decision, but this court consolidated those appeals. See ECF No. 11. Case: 24-1003 Document: 54 Page: 6 Filed: 05/02/2025

Compounds, LLC, 918 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In the Fourth Circuit, a grant of judgment on the pleadings is reviewed without deference. See, e.g., Burbach Broad. Co. v. Elkins Radio Corp., 278 F.3d 401, 405–06 (4th Cir. 2002). B. The ’753 Patent The ’753 patent describes a method and system for “de- termining the location of a mobile device in a geographic region.” ’753 patent, col. 5 ll. 58–59, col. 6 ll. 9–10. The specification explains that the claimed method requires collecting “calibration data for a number of locations within a geographic region” and “analyz[ing]” that data to associ- ate it with “particular points (e.g., ‘grid points’) within the geographic region.” Id. col. 2 ll. 30–33. A mobile device then obtains network signal measurements that “may be compared with the data associated with the various grid points to estimate the location of the mobile device.” Id. col. 2 ll. 37–39. According to the specification, the claimed “grid points do not necessarily have to be part of a uniform grid and usually will not be uniformly distributed through- out the geographic region.” Id. col. 2 ll. 43–46. At Alice step one, a court must consider the claims “in their entirety to ascertain whether their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.” Internet Pats. Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The asserted claims of the ’753 patent are directed to determining the location of a mobile device by collecting data about known locations (such as information about the properties of signals transmitted by different cell towers), organizing that data in a database, and then com- paring that data to measurements from the mobile device. See ’753 patent, col. 59 ll. 14–31, col. 63 ll. 49–67; see also J.A. 267–68, 274–78. These claims, as the district court correctly determined, fail Alice step one because they simply require collecting, comparing, and reporting data Case: 24-1003 Document: 54 Page: 7 Filed: 05/02/2025

GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD. v. GOOGLE LLC 7

using conventional components. See Google Decision, 692 F. Supp. 3d at 581–83. As we have repeatedly emphasized, claims directed to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” without more, are impermissibly abstract. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (concluding that claims “directed to collection of in- formation, comprehending the meaning of that collected in- formation, and indication of the results, all on a generic computer network operating in its normal, expected man- ner” were abstract); Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (concluding that claims related to a system which allowed users to dy- namically view and update documents in different formats were abstract because they were broadly directed to the “concept of collecting, displaying, and manipulating data of particular documents”). The fact that the asserted claims of the ’753 patent re- late to a particular type of information—data about loca- tion—does not remove them from the realm of the abstract. See, e.g., Sanderling Mgmt. Ltd. v. Snap Inc., 65 F.4th 698, 701 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (concluding that claims directed to providing a processing function based on “receiving . . . a Global Positioning System (GPS) location indication from each of a plurality of mobile devices” and “matching . . . each said GPS location indication with [a specific] geo- graphic location” in a database were patent ineligible (cita- tion and internal quotation marks omitted)); Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Zillow Grp., Inc., 50 F.4th 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (concluding that claims describing “coordinated geospatial and list-based mapping” were patent ineligible (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). To the contrary, “even if a process of collecting and analyzing in- formation is limited to particular content or a particular source, that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, Case: 24-1003 Document: 54 Page: 8 Filed: 05/02/2025

LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citation and in- ternal quotation marks omitted); see also Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1353 (explaining that because “[i]nformation as such is an intangible,” this court has “treated collecting in- formation, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas”). We reject, moreover, Geoscope’s contention that the as- serted claims of the ’753 patent contain an inventive con- cept sufficient to save them from patent ineligibility. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (explaining that at step two a court “must examine 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” of that idea (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). According to Geoscope, its claims contain an inventive concept because they provide “concrete tech- nological benefits.” Appellant’s Br. 4. Specifically, it as- serts that “the claimed grid points are not just points on a conventional grid,” id. at 40, but are instead “defined based on analysis of the similarity of the calibration data from which they are generated,” id. at 41, and therefore “do not necessarily have to be part of a uniform grid and usually will not be uniformly distributed throughout the geo- graphic region,” id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). It contends, moreover, that by creating “grid points [which are] generated dynamically from the meas- ured calibration data,” its system “help[s] to fill in the ‘map’ between cell towers, so that geolocation [will] be faster, re- quire fewer resources, and be more accurate.” Id. at 4. The fundamental flaw in this argument is that Geo- scope points to nothing in the language of the asserted claims of the ’753 patent that offers a specific and concrete advance in geolocation technology. See AI Visualize, Inc. v. Nuance Commc’ns, Inc., 97 F.4th 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (concluding that claims which did not “involve un- conventional technology or a concrete application of the Case: 24-1003 Document: 54 Page: 9 Filed: 05/02/2025

GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD. v. GOOGLE LLC 9

[underlying] abstract idea” were patent ineligible). As the specification of the ’753 patent acknowledges, various tech- niques for determining the location of a mobile device were available at the time of the claimed invention. ’753 patent, col. 1 ll. 46–47 (“Currently in the art, there are a number of different ways to geolocate a mobile device.”). The spec- ification further acknowledges that techniques for deter- mining the location of a mobile device using signals from known locations were available. See id. col. 1 ll. 47–65. The asserted claims of the ’753 patent do not invoke the use of existing technology in any unconventional manner, but instead describe—in broad, results-focused terms— comparing measurement data from a mobile device at an unknown location to a reference database containing meas- urement data from known locations. As we have previously made clear, however, “a claim that merely describes an ef- fect or result dissociated from any method by which [it] is accomplished is not directed to patent-eligible subject mat- ter.” Apple Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (alteration in original) (citation and inter- nal quotation marks omitted). While the asserted claims of the ’753 patent describe the concepts of collecting, organ- izing, and analyzing data to determine location, they are bereft of any specific guidelines on how to perform the basic functions they recite. See Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that to meet section 101 claims cannot simply recite “generic functional language to achieve . . . pur- ported solutions”). For example, while claim 1 requires “providing calibra- tion data” which has “one or more characterizing parame- ters,” ’753 patent, col. 59 ll. 16–18, it fails to delineate what those parameters are. 5 See Hawk Tech. Sys., LLC v. Castle

5 The specification of the ’753 patent provides a laun- dry list of “exemplary characterizing parameter[s],” ’753 Case: 24-1003 Document: 54 Page: 10 Filed: 05/02/2025

Retail, LLC, 60 F.4th 1349, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (conclud- ing that claims which recited the use of parameters but “fail[ed] to specify precisely what the parameters [were]” were patent ineligible). Likewise, while claim 1 requires “selecting a set of grid points as a function of . . . predeter- mined criteria,” ’753 patent, col. 59 ll. 27–28, it does not provide guidelines regarding which predetermined criteria should be used. 6 Importantly, moreover, the asserted claims of the ’753 patent do not explain how the claimed grid points are gen- erated from calibration data, much less suggest that any new technology is used during this generation process. “Ul- timately, [t]he [section] 101 inquiry must focus on the lan- guage of the Asserted Claims themselves, and the specification cannot be used to import details from the specification if those details are not claimed.” ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 769 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (first alteration in the original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Because there is nothing in the claim language requiring any specific method of transform- ing calibration data into grid points or describing how such grid points are structured, we reject Geoscope’s assertion that the claimed grid points are “novel, unconventional

patent, col. 51 ll. 42–43, such as the “signal strength for a signal transmitted by a transmitter having a known loca- tion as received by a receiver at the grid point,” id. col. 51 ll. 45–47. It states, however, that the claimed method is “not limited to” the listed exemplary parameters. Id. col. 51 l. 45. Notably, moreover, the specification does not sug- gest that unconventional measurement techniques are re- quired to use any of the listed parameters. 6 The specification provides a list of “[e]xemplary predetermined criteria,” such as “total probability,” id. col. 51 ll. 31–32, but does not limit the claimed method to such criteria, id. col. 51 l. 32. Case: 24-1003 Document: 54 Page: 11 Filed: 05/02/2025

GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD. v. GOOGLE LLC 11

data structures,” Appellant’s Br. 45, which represent a spe- cific technical improvement to geolocation. On appeal, Geoscope argues that the district court com- mitted reversible error by “ignoring its adopted claim con- structions,” id. at 34, when conducting its eligibility analysis. We disagree. The court’s claim constructions— including its determination that the term “grid point” means “a point associated with representative calibration data for an area,” J.A. 2752—are fully consistent with its conclusion that the asserted claims of the ’753 patent are patent-ineligible because they “do not focus on a specific means or method that would improve the relevant technol- ogy,” but are instead “drafted at [such] a high level of gen- erality that they are themselves directed at abstract concepts,” Google Decision, 692 F. Supp. 3d at 582. In this regard, we are unpersuaded by Geoscope’s as- sertion that its claimed grid points are inventive because, unlike conventional grid points, they are “generated dy- namically based on [the] analysis of gathered calibration data.” Appellant’s Br. 37. Merely generating one form of information—grid points—from another type of infor- mation—calibration data—is insufficient to confer patent eligibility. See Hawk Tech., 60 F.4th at 1357 (concluding that claims which required “converting information from one format to another” did not satisfy section 101). Like- wise, regardless of whether the claimed grid points are ar- ranged in a non-uniform pattern, it does not change the fact that they are simply points associated with a particu- lar form of data. See SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1169–70; Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1353–54. In sum, while the asserted claims of the ’753 patent de- scribe comparing measurements taken from a mobile de- vice at an unknown location against a database containing measurements from known locations, they are not directed to any specific improvement in computer technology or sig- nal transmission and measurement functionality. Instead, Case: 24-1003 Document: 54 Page: 12 Filed: 05/02/2025

they rely on existing technology as a tool to measure and compare data from known and unknown locations. See Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., 957 F.3d 1303, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (explaining that the eligibility “in- quiry often turns on whether the claims focus on specific asserted improvements in computer capabilities or instead on a process or system that qualifies [as] an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a tool”). Thus, whether we view the claim elements of the asserted claims of the ’753 patent individually or as an ordered combina- tion, they do not contain an inventive concept sufficient to confer patent eligibility. C. The ’104 Patent Family We likewise conclude that the asserted claims 7 of the ’104 patent family fail to satisfy the demands of section 101. 8 These claims require determining the location of a “mobile station,” ’494 patent, col. 12 l. 11, such as a cell phone, by: (1) providing a database of previously-collected calibration data; (2) collecting observed network measure- ment data; (3) modifying that data; and (4) comparing this modified data with the database. See id. col. 12 ll. 10–22, ll. 31–33, col. 14 ll. 24–26; see also ’104 patent, col. 11 l. 66– col. 12 l. 18; ’358 patent, col. 13 ll. 7–18, ll. 27–29. Because the asserted claims of the ’104 patent family, like those of the ’753 patent, “at most recite abstract data

7 Although Geoscope originally asserted infringe- ment of claim 52 of the ’358 patent, the parties, in light of the district court’s claim construction order, stipulated to invalidity of that claim. See J.A. 2939, 2944. 8 The district court determined that claim 1 of the ’494 patent was not representative of all asserted claims of the ’104 patent family. Google Decision, 692 F. Supp. 3d at 574–75. Accordingly, it “address[ed] the distinguishing characteristics of” the various asserted claims of the ’104 patent family individually. Id. at 575. Case: 24-1003 Document: 54 Page: 13 Filed: 05/02/2025

GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD. v. GOOGLE LLC 13

manipulation,” Hawk Tech., 60 F.4th at 1358, they fail to pass muster under Alice step one. On appeal, Geoscope argues that the asserted claims of the ’104 patent family “address a particular problem in ge- olocation involving disparities between calibration data and observed data caused by varying conditions and other operational variables affecting how signals propagate in different environments, resulting in poor estimated loca- tion accuracy.” Appellant’s Br. 57 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). It further asserts that “the dif- ferences in signal propagation outdoors versus indoors can make it difficult to perform an appropriate comparison of calibration data to observed data for geolocation.” Id. Ac- cording to Geoscope, the “modifying” step of the asserted claims of the ’104 patent family supplies an inventive con- cept because it eliminates disparities between data col- lected outdoors and data collected indoors and thus “prevent[s] an ‘apples and oranges’ comparison between the two.” Id. at 58. This argument falls flat. The asserted claims of the ’104 patent family are not limited to “eliminating dispari- ties” between outdoor and indoor data. Indeed, the words “outdoor” and “indoor” are not recited in the claims. Fur- thermore, while the claims recite “modifying” observed net- work measurement data before using that modified data to determine location, ’494 patent, col. 12 l. 19, they do not specify precisely how such modifications should occur or re- cite any new technology for performing such modifications. See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1356 (explaining that “the es- sentially result-focused, functional character of claim lan- guage has been a frequent feature of claims held ineligible under [section] 101”). Claim 18 of the ’358 patent invokes the use of “cir- cuitry” to carry out the functions of collecting, modifying, and comparing data. ’358 patent, col. 13 ll. 12, 14, 16; see also id. col. 13 ll. 27–29. Reciting the use of conventional Case: 24-1003 Document: 54 Page: 14 Filed: 05/02/2025

components which function in their expected manner, how- ever, is insufficient to satisfy section 101. See, e.g., BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290–91 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“If a claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is the application of an abstract idea using conventional and well- understood techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.”). Likewise, while claim 2 of the ’104 patent and claim 26 of the ’494 patent require routine mathematical calculations, see ’104 patent, col. 12 ll. 9–12; ’494 patent, col. 14 ll. 17– 18, the use of such calculations fails to supply an inventive concept. See In re Bd. of Trs. of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 991 F.3d 1245, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (explaining that “[c]ourts have long held that mathematical algorithms for performing calculations, without more, are patent ineligi- ble under [section] 101”); see also SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1168 (concluding that claims were patent ineligible where their “focus” was “not a physical-realm improvement but an improvement in wholly abstract ideas—the selection and mathematical analysis of information, followed by re- porting or display of the results”). We have considered Ge- oscope’s remaining arguments but do not find them persuasive. III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the judgments of the United States Dis- trict Court for the Eastern District of Virginia are affirmed. AFFIRMED