Ceiva Opco, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CEIVA OPCO, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
AMAZON.COM, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-1721
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in No. 2:22-cv-02709-AB-
MAA, Judge Andre Birotte, Jr.
______________________
Decided: July 23, 2026
______________________
L AWRENCE MILTON H ADLEY , Glaser Weil Fink Howard
Jordan & Shapiro LLP, Los Angeles, CA, argued for plain-
tiff-appellant. Also represented by RYAN BANKS , J ASON
L INGER, STEPHEN U NDERWOOD.
J. D AVID HADDEN , Fenwick & West LLP, Mountain
View, CA, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented
by RAVI RAGAVENDRA RANGANATH , SAINA S. SHAMILOV;
T ODD R ICHARD G REGORIAN, San Francisco, CA; J ONATHAN
G. T AMIMI, Seattle, WA.
Case: 24-1721 Document: 71 Page: 1 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 1 of 17 --

CEIVA OPCO, LLC v. AMAZON. COM , INC. 2
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, L OURIE and R EYNA, Circuit
Judges.
REYNA, Circuit Judge.
Ceiva Opco, LLC appeals the United States District
Court for the Central District of California’s grant of Ama-
zon.com, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment of ineligibil-
ity under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We affirm in part, reverse in
part, and remand for further proceedings.
BACKGROUND
I.
At issue in this appeal are four representative claims
from four patents: claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 6,442,573
(“’573 patent”), claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,203,930 (“’930
patent”), claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,654,562 (“’562 pa-
tent”), and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,124,656 (“’656 pa-
tent”). The patents are related and share a common
specification that claims priority to an application filed De-
cember 10, 1999.1 J.A. 61, 1:31–32. The patents disclose
methods and apparatuses for “distributing picture mail to
a frame device community.” J.A. 61, 1:8–10.
According to the specification, there were prior art dig-
ital picture frames, such as the Sony “CyberFrame.”
J.A. 61, 1:47–50. Figure 1A depicts the CyberFrame:
1 We cite to the common specification as it appears
in the ’573 patent unless otherwise specified.
Case: 24-1721 Document: 71 Page: 2 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 2 of 17 --

CEIVA OPCO, LLC v. AMAZON. COM , INC. 3
J.A. 49.
Prior art digital picture frames were “isolated” devices,
meaning that they did not have the ability to communicate
with other devices “over a telecommunication medium.”
J.A. 61, 2:28–32. This isolation resulted in three shortcom-
ings, all relating to a requirement that a user be physically
within reach of the digital picture frame. J.A. 61, 2:29–32.
First, the data displayed on prior art devices was only ob-
tainable from a storage media, such as a memory stick, re-
quiring the user to “physically provide [the] storage media
to the device.” J.A. 61, 2:15–17. Thus, “a person who [did]
not have physical access to the device [could not] introduce
new images into the device.” J.A. 61, 2:17–19. But even
physical presence is not enough absent having in hand the
storage media. Second, only a user who could physically
push buttons on the prior art devices could adjust the set-
tings of the devices. J.A. 61, 2:17–22; J.A. 49, Figure 1A.
Finally, prior art devices could not be updated remotely to
add new features, such as “automatically receiv[ing] differ-
ent types of image data.” J.A. 61, 2:33–35.
Case: 24-1721 Document: 71 Page: 3 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 3 of 17 --

CEIVA OPCO, LLC v. AMAZON. COM , INC. 4
The patents purport to overcome these shortcomings
with an improved digital picture frame that is “self-config-
uring” and that “obtains images for display and/or software
from a data repository [e.g., database] via an interconnec-
tion fabric (e.g. a computer network).” J.A. 64, 8:32–35;
J.A. 64, 8:61–62. As a result, a user need not be within
physical proximity of the frame to adjust its settings or to
upload images. See J.A. 63, 6:39–41. “If a person . . . wants
to display an image on the frame device the person may do
so by transmitting the image data to the repository.”
J.A. 63, 6:39–41. The user can access the data repository
remotely “via a graphic user interface called a picture box,”
which “is accessible via a web browser.” J.A. 63, 6:62–66.
As a result, the owner of the digital picture frame need not
upload images but can instead provide permission to a
“parent” user, who can upload images to the device on the
owner’s behalf. J.A. 68, 15:58–16:11.
The specification also notes that the invention “mini-
mizes the amount of complexity presented to the user.”
J.A. 64, 8:42–45. For example, the specification explains
that the device is “self-configuring and self-maintained”
and “does not require input from the user to obtain new
images and/or update the onboard software.” J.A. 65,
9:32–35, 10:2–3. In one embodiment, the device “begins to
acquire configuration information by obtaining the toll free
phone number stored in the devices’ memory and using
that number to connect to a server computer.” J.A. 65,
9:35–39.
Although the patents share a common specification,
the four representative claims do not all share the same
focus. Representative claim 19 of the ’573 patent, (i.e., the
“digital picture frame” claim), recites a system of image
data sharing via a “digital picture frame.” The remaining
representative claims, (collectively, the “digital display de-
vice” claims), each recite a system of image data sharing
via a variation of a “digital display device.”
Case: 24-1721 Document: 71 Page: 4 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 4 of 17 --

CEIVA OPCO, LLC v. AMAZON. COM , INC. 5
Claim 19 of the ’573 patent, the only claim which
claims a “digital picture frame,” recites:
19. A system for distributing image data compris-
ing:
at least one digital picture frame comprising
memory and operating system software located in-
side said digital picture frame configured to oper-
ate according to preferences defined by a user, said
at least one digital picture frame comprising a bor-
der region modeled to resemble a picture frame de-
signed to circumscribe printed photographs;
a user interface coupled to at least one server sys-
tem via a network wherein said user interface is
physically separable from said at least one digital
picture frame and configured to obtain image data
and said preferences from said user and provide
said image data and said preferences to said at
least one server system;
said at least one server system coupled to said at
least one digital picture frame via said network,
wherein said at least one server system is config-
ured to periodically relay said image data and said
preferences to said at least one digital picture
frame when said at least one digital picture frame
automatically issues a request for said image data
and
wherein said at least one digital picture frame is
configured to obtain an update for said operating
system software from said at least one server sys-
tem.
J.A. 81, 4:16–39.
Case: 24-1721 Document: 71 Page: 5 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 5 of 17 --

CEIVA OPCO, LLC v. AMAZON. COM , INC. 6
Claim 1 of the ’930 patent is representative of the digi-
tal display device claims, and recites:2
1. A digital display apparatus having an integrated
housing, said integrated housing comprising:
an image display region on an outside surface of
said integrated housing;
a memory in an inside of said integrated housing,
said memory comprising a plurality of image data
files, security information comprising authentica-
tion information for a first remote server system
and a unique identifier for said digital display ap-
paratus, and a current version of onboard software;
a processor configured to control the display of im-
age data from said plurality of image data files in
said image display region in accordance with said
onboard software in said inside of said integrated
housing;
communication circuitry configured to engage a
network medium in said inside of said integrated
housing under the control of said processor;
wherein said onboard software comprises:
an image display function configured to obtain im-
age data from said plurality of image data files in
said memory for rendering in said image display
region
a remote connection function configured to auto-
matically initiate communications with said first
2 While we have considered all claims at issue on ap-
peal, because claim 1 of the ’930 patent is substantially
similar to asserted claims in the ’656 and ’562 patents, our
opinion identifies claim 1 of the ’930 patent as representa-
tive of the digital display device claims.
Case: 24-1721 Document: 71 Page: 6 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 6 of 17 --

CEIVA OPCO, LLC v. AMAZON. COM , INC. 7
remote server system across said network medium,
said remote connection function further configured
to send a request for image data to said first remote
server system after initiating said communications
and to receive in response to said request for image
data a set of data from said first remote server sys-
tem comprising one or more image data files;
an authentication function configured to authenti-
cate said first remote server system prior to accept-
ing said set of data from said first remote server
system;
a software update function configured to obtain an
updated version of said onboard software from said
server and to replace said current version of said
onboard software in said memory with said up-
dated version.
J.A. 142–143, 30:56–31:25.
II.
The asserted patents issued to Ceiva Logic, Inc. (“Ceiva
Logic”), a non-party to this appeal and the parent company
of appellant Ceiva Opco LLC (“Ceiva”). Ceiva, through
Ceiva Logic, sued appellee Amazon.com Inc. (“Amazon”) in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
for infringement of the ’573, ’930, and ’562 patents by a
range of Amazon products, such as the Kindle, Echo Show,
and Fire Tablet. The district court dismissed this suit for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction when plaintiff Ceiva
Logic admitted it did not own the patents and that Ceiva
was the owner of the patents.
Ceiva refiled suit, adding the ’656 patent and accusing
additional Amazon products, like the Fire TV. Amazon
moved for summary judgment of invalidity of all asserted
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Case: 24-1721 Document: 71 Page: 7 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 7 of 17 --

CEIVA OPCO, LLC v. AMAZON. COM , INC. 8
In deciding the summary judgment motion, the district
court determined that claim 19 of the ’573 patent, claim 16
of the ’562 patent, and claim 1 of the ’930 and ’656 patents
were representative. J.A. 9. At Alice step one, the district
court held that all four representative claims were directed
to the abstract idea of “‘automatically accessing a remote
data repository to obtain updated content without the use
of a computer and without any further user input,’ within
the context of a digital picture frame.” J.A. 11. The district
court reasoned that the representative claims were “aspi-
rational” because they recite a “desired result” but “do not
claim any specific way to achieve that result.” J.A. 13–14.
At Alice step two, the district court determined that all rep-
resentative claims did not recite an inventive concept.
J.A. 17–20.
Ceiva appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(1).
D ISCUSSION
We apply regional circuit law when reviewing a district
court’s grant of summary judgment. Constellation Designs,
LLC v. LG Elecs. Inc., 174 F.4th 888, 900–01 (Fed. Cir.
2026). Applying Ninth Circuit law, we review a district
court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Kraus v. Pre-
sidio Tr. Facilities Div./Residential Mgmt. Branch, 572
F.3d 1039, 1043–44 (9th Cir. 2009). Summary judgment is
appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247–48 (1986).
Section 101 of the Patent Act states, “[w]hoever invents
or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manu-
facture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful
improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject
to the conditions and requirements of this title.” 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. The Supreme Court has determined that certain ex-
ceptions to the requirements of § 101 exist such that
Case: 24-1721 Document: 71 Page: 8 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 8 of 17 --

CEIVA OPCO, LLC v. AMAZON. COM , INC. 9
“[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas
are not patentable.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (citation omitted). The patenta-
bility exception for abstract ideas, at issue in this case, em-
bodies “the longstanding rule that [a]n idea of itself is not
patentable.” Id. at 218 (citation modified).
To determine whether patent claims are directed to pa-
tent ineligible subject matter, the Supreme Court has de-
veloped a two-step test commonly known as the “Alice” test.
Under Alice step one, we consider whether the claims at
issue are directed to, in this case, an abstract idea. Id. at
217. If the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, the
Alice inquiry ends. Id. If we conclude that the claims are
directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the inquiry
continues to Alice step two, where we ask whether the
claims recite something “significantly more” than the ab-
stract idea itself. Id. at 217–18. Specifically, the court
must determine “whether the claim elements, individually
and as an ordered combination, contain an inventive con-
cept, which is more than merely implementing an abstract
idea using well-understood, routine, and conventional ac-
tivities previously known to the industry.” Chewy, Inc. v.
Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 94 F.4th 1354, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
2024) (citation modified).
Because we see meaningful differences between the
digital picture frame claim and the digital display device
claims, we address them separately in turn.
I. Digital picture frame claim
We begin with claim 19 of the ’573 patent. We deter-
mine that this claim is not directed to an abstract idea and
therefore end our inquiry there. We reverse the district
court’s grant of summary judgment of ineligibility as to this
claim and remand for further proceedings.
“In our eligibility analysis, we consider the claim as a
whole . . . and read it in light of the specification.” Packet
Case: 24-1721 Document: 71 Page: 9 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 9 of 17 --

CEIVA OPCO, LLC v. AMAZON. COM , INC. 10
Intel. LLC v. NetScout Sys., Inc., 965 F.3d 1299, 1309 (Fed.
Cir. 2020) (citation modified). “At step one, we look to what
the specification describes as the invention only to help un-
derstand the focus of the claims.” ChargePoint, Inc. v.
SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 768 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2019);
see also Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327,
1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that the specification’s teach-
ings that the claimed invention achieves other benefits
over conventional databases “bolstered” the conclusion
that the claim was non-abstract). At step one, we are not
concerned with “whether the claimed invention is actually
novel.” ChargePoint, 920 F.3d at 768 n.2. “[A]ny novelty
in implementation of the idea is a factor to be considered
only in the second step of the Alice analysis.” Ultramercial,
Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
At Alice step one, “[w]e have held inventions to be pa-
tent-eligible where they recite a technological solution to a
technological problem.” Ollnova Techs. Ltd. v. ecobee
Techs. ULC, 177 F.4th 1343, 1360–62 (Fed. Cir. 2026) (in-
ternal quotations and citation omitted). In Ollnova, the
claims recited a technological improvement in the opera-
tion of a wireless network because the claims recited a
“particular technique governing when and how information
is transmitted within a network using a wireless automa-
tion device,” such as through timing constraints. Id. at
1361. There, the specification confirmed that the claimed
limitations addressed technical problems in wireless net-
works. Id. Similarly, in Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro,
Inc., the claims recited a technologically improved point of
view (“POV”) camera because the claims required parallel
recording of low- and high-quality data streams, which,
based on the specification, was an improvement to POV
camera technology. 113 F.4th 1373, 1379–81 (Fed. Cir.
2024). Also, in Packet Intelligence, the claims recited an
improved “packet monitor” for network monitoring when
the claims detailed the steps in the monitoring process,
Case: 24-1721 Document: 71 Page: 10 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 10 of 17 --

CEIVA OPCO, LLC v. AMAZON. COM , INC. 11
which, based on the specification, was an improvement in
network monitors. 965 F.3d at 1304, 1309–10.
Like the claims in Ollnova, Contour IP, and Packet In-
telligence, claim 19 is directed to a technical solution to a
technological problem, specifically an improved system for
sharing digital images via a “digital picture frame” with a
“physical separable” user interface. Claim 19 captures this
technological improvement through its combination of
claim limitations and requirement of a “digital picture
frame” that is “physically separable” from the frame’s “user
interface,” i.e., a “picture box” on a webpage, such that a
user can upload “image data” and change the settings of
the digital picture frame remotely via the user interface.
In other words, because the claimed “digital picture frame”
with a “physically separable” user interface governs when
and how the digital picture frame (1) receives and displays
image data to the user and (2) receives updates to its set-
tings, the claim captures a sufficiently specific technologi-
cal advancement (remote user access to a digital picture
frame) in digital picture frame technology. Ollnova, at
1361. Put another way, the functional result of remote user
access to the digital picture frame “is achieved by limiting
the claim scope to” sufficiently concrete structures, includ-
ing a “digital picture frame” with a “physically separable”
user interface. See Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc. v. Neapco Hold-
ings LLC, 967 F.3d 1285, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (explaining
that the claim “must identify ‘how’ that functional result is
achieved by limiting the claim scope to structures specified
at some level of concreteness, in the case of a product claim,
or to concrete action, in the case of a method claim”).
The specification confirms that the claimed invention
addresses technological problems in digital picture frame
technology. The specification explains that prior art digital
picture frames had a proximity issue, i.e., that a user had
to be physically present to upload pictures via a memory
stick and had to physically manipulate the frame to update
Case: 24-1721 Document: 71 Page: 11 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 11 of 17 --

CEIVA OPCO, LLC v. AMAZON. COM , INC. 12
settings. J.A. 61, 2:15–22, 2:29–32; J.A. 49, Figure 1A;
J.A. 63, 6:39–41.
The claimed digital picture frame overcomes the prox-
imity issue by providing users with remote access to the
device. J.A. 63, 6:39–41. For example, the owner of the
digital picture frame could grant permission to a “parent”
user, who could remotely upload images to the device on
the owner’s behalf. J.A. 68, 15:58–16:11. In this way,
claim 19 recites a specific type of improved digital picture
frame that provides remote user access, and importantly
does not simply recite, without more, the result of auto-
matic, remote image sharing.
The district court’s decision below characterizes the
claim at an impermissibly high level of generality. See En-
fish, 822 F.3d at 1337 (“[D]escribing the claims at such a
high level of abstraction and untethered from the language
of the claims all but ensures that the exceptions to § 101
swallow the rule.”). Here, the district court disregarded the
claimed advance over the prior art of an improved digital
picture frame with a physically separable user interface.
Specifically, the district court rejected Ceiva’s argument
that claim 19 is directed to such a technological improve-
ment, explaining that it:
discloses “[a] user interface . . . configured to ob-
tain image data and said preferences from said
user and provide said image data and said prefer-
ences to” a server. A generic user interface per-
forming a generic function is not an improvement.
Neither is communication between the user inter-
face and server or other components. Moreover,
the claim discloses only that the user interface is
‘configured’ to achieve a result. This type of results-
based claiming does not constitute an improve-
ment.
J.A. 13 (internal citations omitted and emphasis added).
The district court’s quote of the claim language leaves out
Case: 24-1721 Document: 71 Page: 12 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 12 of 17 --

CEIVA OPCO, LLC v. AMAZON. COM , INC. 13
the critical claim limitation that the user interface “is phys-
ically separable from said at least one digital picture
frame.” J.A. 81, 4:25–26. As a result, the district court’s
erroneous characterization of the claim all but ensured the
incorrect conclusion that the claim was not directed to a
technological improvement but instead impermissibly
claimed only a result.
In sum, we conclude that claim 19 of the ’573 patent is
not directed to an abstract idea under Alice step one and is
therefore patent eligible under § 101.3 We do not reach Al-
ice step two.
II. Digital display device claims
We now turn to the remaining representative claims,
claim 1 of the ’930 patent, claim 16 of the ’562 patent, and
claim 1 of the ’656 patent. Unlike claim 19 of the ’537 pa-
tent, we agree with the district court that these representa-
tive claims are not patent-eligible under § 101. We affirm
the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to these
claims.
A.
Turning to Alice step one, the digital display device
claims are notably unlike claim 19 of the ’537 patent in that
they are “purely functional” claims that are directed to a
result. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221–26. As “reflected repeatedly
in our cases,” claims can be “abstract” under step one when
they lack the “specificity required to transform a claim
from one claiming only a result to one claiming a way of
achieving it.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d
1161, 1167–68 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Importantly, the Alice step
one requirement that claims are sufficiently specific as to
3 Patent-eligible does not mean patentable under,
e.g., 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112. The patentability of
the ’537 patent under those provisions is not before us.
Case: 24-1721 Document: 71 Page: 13 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 13 of 17 --

CEIVA OPCO, LLC v. AMAZON. COM , INC. 14
“how” a functional result is achieved is part of the § 101
threshold test, which is distinct from, and not be confused
with, the related, patentability requirement of enablement
under 35 U.S.C. § 112. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593,
602 (2010) (“The § 101 patent-eligibility inquiry is only a
threshold test.”); Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867
F.3d 1253, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]hether a patent spec-
ification teaches an ordinarily skilled artisan how to imple-
ment the claimed invention presents an enablement issue
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, not an eligibility issue under
§ 101. . . . [A] patent need not teach, and preferably omits,
what is well known in the art.” (citation modified)).
Here, the representative claims are not limited to a
“digital picture frame” that is “physically separable” from
a “user interface,” such that the claims capture a concrete
technological improved digital picture frame, as claim 19 of
the ’573 patent does. Rather, these claims are broader,
reciting variations of a “display device,” with most claims
not even referring to a “user interface.”4 Additionally,
some of the claims focus on “software” configured to achieve
various functions, including remote access, but do not claim
any specific way to achieve those results.
For example, claim 1 of the ’930 patent claims a “digital
display apparatus” comprising an “image display region,”
“memory,” a “processor,” and “onboard software,” with the
software comprising various functions, such as “an image
display function,” a “remote connection function,” an “au-
thentication function,” and a “software update function,”
“configured to” execute certain actions. J.A. 142–43,
30:56–31:25 (emphasis added). Notably, however, unlike
claim 19 of the ’573 patent, in which the remote function-
ality is concretely captured by the claimed digital picture
4 Apart from representative claim 19 of the ’573 pa-
tent, only representative claim 1 of the ’656 patent recites
an “interface.” See J.A. 112, 31:27–30.
Case: 24-1721 Document: 71 Page: 14 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 14 of 17 --

CEIVA OPCO, LLC v. AMAZON. COM , INC. 15
frame with a physically separable user interface, there is
nothing in claim 1 of the ’930 patent directed to how to im-
plement the software for the “remote connection function.”5
Thus, the representative claims of the ’930, ’656, and ’562
patents are written to claim “only a result” as opposed to a
“way of achieving it.” See SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1167–68.
Accordingly, the representative claims are drawn to the un-
derlying idea itself, i.e., “automatically accessing a remote
data repository to obtain updated content without the use
5 To be clear, that a claim recites components “con-
figured to” execute an action does not automatically render
the claim abstract at step one of Alice. See Core Wireless
Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1359,
1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding claim non-abstract even
though it recited “[a] computing device comprising a dis-
play screen, the computing device being configured to dis-
play on the screen a menu listing one or more applications,
and additionally being configured to display on the screen
an application summary . . . .” (emphasis added)); see also
Contour IP, 113 F.4th at 1376, 1379–80 (holding claim non-
abstract even though it recited “an image sensor configured
to capture light . . . a wireless connection protocol device
configured to send real time image content . . . a camera
processor configured to . . . receive the video image
data . . .” (emphasis added)). To hold that a claim is ab-
stract simply because it contains certain phrases, such as
“configured to,” would result in the slicing and dicing of
claims, violating our well-established law that a claim for
eligibility purposes should be viewed as a whole, and in
light of the specification. See, e.g., Packet Intel., 965 F.3d
at 1309. However, this is not the case here. As we conclude
above, when read as a whole and in light of the specifica-
tion, these claims do not sufficiently explain how to achieve
the claimed desired results.
Case: 24-1721 Document: 71 Page: 15 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 15 of 17 --

CEIVA OPCO, LLC v. AMAZON. COM , INC. 16
of a computer and without any further user input,” and are
thus abstract at Alice step one. J.A. 14–15.
B.
Because the representative claims of the ’930, ’656, and
’562 patents are directed to an abstract idea, we proceed to
step two of Alice. At step two, “a claimed invention’s use of
the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply
the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘signifi-
cantly more’ than that ineligible concept.” BSG Tech LLC
v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Here, neither the claims’ components nor its functions do
anything more than implement the abstract idea of “auto-
matically accessing a remote data repository to obtain up-
dated content without the use of a computer and without
any further user input.” We conclude that there is nothing
in the claims sufficient to transform them into eligible sub-
ject matter.
Ceiva argues that the claims survive step two, or that
a question of fact remains as to step two, by relying on sec-
ondary considerations to show an inventive concept, specif-
ically industry praise for Ceiva’s commercial product, the
“Ceiva Frame.” Appellant Br. 32 (citing J.A. 7443–82); see
id. at 55. However, “[q]uestions of nonobviousness such as
secondary considerations . . . are irrelevant when consider-
ing eligibility.” Ficep Corp. v. Peddinghaus Corp., No.
2022-1590, 2023 WL 5346043, at *7 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 21,
2023) (first citing SAP, 898 F.3d at 1163; and then citing
Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307,
1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Even assuming such evidence can
be relevant under a step two analysis, Ceiva does not ex-
plain how such evidence relates to any particular claim el-
ement or ordered combination of the elements. Appellant
Br. 55–61. Instead, Ceiva broadly argues that praise of the
Ceiva Frame being “pioneering,” “brilliant,” “surpris[ing],”
“ridiculously easy” to install and use, and “unbelievable,”
confirms that technological advantages, such as automatic
Case: 24-1721 Document: 71 Page: 16 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 16 of 17 --

CEIVA OPCO, LLC v. AMAZON. COM , INC. 17
configuration, automatic retrieval of pictures, and remote
configuration, “are captured by the Asserted Claims.” Ap-
pellant Br. 55. This broad and conclusory statement does
not sufficiently tie any evidence of secondary considera-
tions, such as industry praise, to any claim limitation
which could potentially indicate the inventiveness of that
limitation.
In sum, we agree with the district court that the repre-
sentative claims for the ’930, ’656, and ’562 patents do not
recite an inventive concept under step two of Alice and are
thus patent ineligible. We affirm the grant of summary
judgment of patent ineligibility as to these claims.
CONCLUSION
We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons provided, we
reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment of
ineligibility as to the ’573 patent and remand for further
proceedings as to this patent. We affirm the district court’s
grant of summary judgment of ineligibility as to the repre-
sentative claims of the ’930, ’656, and ’562 patents.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART, AND
REMANDED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1721 Document: 71 Page: 17 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 17 of 17 --