Tjtm Technologies, LLC v. Google LLC

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
TJTM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1218
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California in No. 3:24-cv-01232-TLT,
Judge Trina L. Thompson.
______________________
Decided: May 5, 2025
______________________
BLAIR V. KITTLE, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP,
Burlingame, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also rep-
resented by JOSEPH W. COTCHETT, VASTI S. MONTIEL.
JONATHAN IRVIN TIETZ, Perkins Coie LLP, Washington,
DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
DAN L. BAGATELL, Hanover, NH.
______________________
Before DYK, CHEN, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 25-1218 Document: 42 Page: 1 Filed: 05/05/2026

-- 1 of 7 --

TJTM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 2
CHEN, Circuit Judge.
TJTM Technologies, LLC (TJTM) appeals the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Califor-
nia’s grant of Google LLC’s (Google) motion to dismiss.
TJTM Techs., LLC v. Google LLC, No. 24-CV-01232-TLT,
2024 WL 5106443, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2024) (Deci-
sion). Below, the district court determined that repre-
sentative claim 1 of TJTM’s U.S. Patent No. 8,958,853 (’853
patent) (1) is directed to an ineligible abstract idea and
(2) lacks an inventive concept. Thus, the district court de-
termined that the ’853 patent claims were ineligible under
35 U.S.C. § 101, and TJTM could not survive a motion to
dismiss its patent infringement action. Because we agree
that the ’853 patent claims are ineligible under § 101, we
affirm.
BACKGROUND
TJTM is the owner of the ’853 patent. The ’853 patent
relates to “a mobile device including functionality for sup-
pressing user notifications of communications received by
the mobile device.” ’853 patent col. 1 ll. 14–18. The speci-
fication discloses a generically-described mobile phone hav-
ing an “inactive mode” which suppresses incoming
notifications of calls, texts, emails, etc. and automatically
notifies the sender with an “away message.” Id. col 1 l. 66
– col. 2 l. 1.
Independent claim 1 is representative and recites:
A mobile device, comprising:
a wireless communication module;
a processor, controlling the wireless communica-
tion module; and
a memory controlled by the processor, the memory
including instructions that when executed by the
processor cause the processor to perform the steps
of:
Case: 25-1218 Document: 42 Page: 2 Filed: 05/05/2026

-- 2 of 7 --

TJTM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 3
providing a graphical user interface
through which a user customizes one or
more functions of the mobile device when
placed in an inactive mode;
receiving a user selection to automatically
initiate the inactive mode in response to
the pairing of the mobile device with a ve-
hicle;
receiving a user selection of an away mes-
sage to use when the mobile device is in in-
active mode;
in response to the pairing of the mobile de-
vice and the vehicle, automatically initiat-
ing a process to place the mobile device in
inactive mode;
when the mobile device is in inactive mode,
in response to receiving a communication
from the wireless communication module,
transmitting the user selected away mes-
sage via the wireless module and suppress-
ing one or more sound, visual, or vibration
communication cues that would have ac-
companied the communication had the mo-
bile device not been in inactive mode.
Id. at col. 12 ll. 36–61.
On February 29, 2024, TJTM filed a complaint alleging
certain features implemented in Google Android phones to
prevent distracted driving infringed TJTM’s ’853 patent.
Decision, 2024 WL 5106443, at *1. In response, Google
filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court granted
after applying the two-step framework outlined in Alice
Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
For its Alice step one analysis, the court found that
Case: 25-1218 Document: 42 Page: 3 Filed: 05/05/2026

-- 3 of 7 --

TJTM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 4
representative claim 11 was directed to the abstract idea of
“screening notifications.” J.A. 253. After finding that
claim 1 lacks an inventive concept under Alice step two, the
court granted TJTM leave to amend its pleadings to ad-
dress step two. For step one, the court found amendment
was futile. See id. at 258–59.
On September 3, 2024, TJTM filed its first amended
complaint, and Google responded by filing a second motion
to dismiss. Decision, 2024 WL 5106443, at *1.
After revisiting its Alice step two analysis, the district
court agreed with Google that each of the components in
claim 1 was generic and well-known, and combined in con-
ventional fashion. See id. at *6. Thus, the court deter-
mined that TJTM’s allegations in its amended complaint
were insufficient to withstand Google’s patent-eligibility
challenge and dismissed TJTM’s infringement case.
TJTM timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
DISCUSSION
On appeal, TJTM first argues the district court erred
in its step one analysis. According to TJTM, mobile devices
in normal operation can cause distracted driving, and “the
patent addresses this technological problem with a techno-
logical solution.” Appellant Br. 9.
In its first motion to dismiss order, the district court
determined that claim 1’s language describes little more
than “screening notifications” for a mobile device. J.A. 253.
For further support, the district court noted the specifica-
tion highlighted the problem of distracted driving and its
1 TJTM does not dispute that claim 1 is representa-
tive of all the claims of the ’853 patent, i.e., claims 1–9. See
generally Appellant Br.
Case: 25-1218 Document: 42 Page: 4 Filed: 05/05/2026

-- 4 of 7 --

TJTM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 5
proposed solution was to simply suppress communications.
See id. (citing ’853 patent col. 2 ll. 2–3, 46–56).
TJTM’s argument does not dispute any of these find-
ings. Instead, TJTM suggests that claim 1 is analogous to
the claims found eligible in Contour IP Holding LLC v. Go-
Pro, Inc., 113 F.4th 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2024), and similar cases
in which this court determined claims “directed to a tech-
nological solution to a technological problem” were not di-
rected to patent ineligible subject matter. See Appellant
Br. 12–16. This argument is unavailing.
As the district court observed, claim 1 describes “[t]he
method of mobile devices pairing with vehicles to automat-
ically enter inactive mode.” J.A. 253. While the method
may improve a user’s experience via a mobile device auto-
matically entering inactive mode, that extra user benefit
alone does not amount to a “technological improvement”
under our precedent. The claimed invention merely recites
a different mode of operation for a mobile phone without
reciting any change to the underlying mobile phone tech-
nology. Cf. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327,
1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (determining that the claimed inven-
tion was directed to a specific self-referential table for a
computer database and not merely “the concept of organiz-
ing information using tabular formats”). TJTM’s argument
fails to suggest that the claims of the ’853 patent are di-
rected to anything other than an abstract idea of adding a
communication-suppression function to a phone.
TJTM also disputes the district court’s step two analy-
sis. TJTM contends the district court was incorrect in find-
ing the claim limitations—which TJTM articulates as a
“specific combination” of steps that “achieve[] the patent[’s]
intended result of preventing distracted driving”—are “or-
dered in a conventional fashion.” Appellant Br. 18.
In its second motion to dismiss order, the district court
concluded that claim 1 recites “generic and well-known”
components “ordered in a conventional fashion.” Decision,
Case: 25-1218 Document: 42 Page: 5 Filed: 05/05/2026

-- 5 of 7 --

TJTM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 6
2024 WL 5106443, at *6. We agree with the district court’s
analysis.
TJTM’s arguments are merely conclusory assertions
that claim 1 recites an inventive concept. TJTM does not
suggest how or why claim 1’s sequence2 of “placing [a] com-
munications device in inactive mode,” “detecting an incom-
ing communication,” “suppressing [a] notification to [a]
user,” and “transmitting an away message to the sender of
the communication,” Appellant Br. 19, is anything more
than a description of the abstract idea of suppressing noti-
fications on a cell phone. We have previously “explained
that merely applying an abstract idea to a ‘particular tech-
nological environment,’ . . . [i]s not enough to transform
the underlying idea into something patent eligible.” Cell-
spin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306, 1319 (Fed. Cir.
2019) (internal citation removed).
Conclusory allegations as to an inventive concept are
insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss. See Trinity Info
Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., 72 F.4th 1355, 1365–66 (Fed.
Cir. 2023) (disregarding conclusory allegations regarding a
patent claim’s inventive concept when evaluating a com-
plaint under Rule 12(b)(6)). Before the district court,
TJTM relied on conclusory statements, and it continues to
do so in this appeal. Therefore, like the district court, we
conclude that representative claim 1 lacks an inventive
concept.3 Accordingly, the claims of the ’853 patent are pa-
tent ineligible under § 101.
2 TJTM lists five steps as part of the ’853 patented
invention. See Appellant Br. 19. However, its fifth step,
“upon completion of the inactive mode, notifying the user
of missed communications,” is not disclosed in representa-
tive claim 1. Thus, we omit this step from our discussion.
3 Though TJTM suggested in its briefs that “pairing
the mobile device with the vehicle and automatically
Case: 25-1218 Document: 42 Page: 6 Filed: 05/05/2026

-- 6 of 7 --

TJTM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 7
We have reviewed the remainder of TJTM’s arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
affirm.
AFFIRMED
putting it in inactive mode” is an inventive concept, see Ap-
pellant Br. 19, at oral argument TJTM effectively conceded
that, at the time of invention, “pairing the mobile device”
was not an inventive part of the ’853 patent. See Oral Arg.
at 9:29–10:59, available at
https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1218_04
062026.mp3 (agreeing that “methods of pairing” were
known in the field and were not a necessary part of the as-
serted claim).
Case: 25-1218 Document: 42 Page: 7 Filed: 05/05/2026

-- 7 of 7 --