Innovaport LLC v. Target Corporation

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
INNOVAPORT LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
TARGET CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-1545
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin in No. 3:22-cv-00425-wmc,
Judge William M. Conley.
______________________
Decided: February 6, 2026
______________________
MICHAEL T. GRIGGS, Boyle Fredrickson, S.C., Milwau-
kee, WI, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented
by ADAM BROOKMAN, MARRIAM LIN.
LANCE E. WYATT, JR., Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas,
TX, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
NEIL J. MCNABNAY, MICHAEL VINCENT.
______________________
Before REYNA, STOLL, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.
Case: 24-1545 Document: 34 Page: 1 Filed: 02/06/2026

-- 1 of 17 --

INNOVAPORT LLC v. TARGET CORPORATION 2
CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judge.
Innovaport LLC (“Innovaport”) appeals the United
States District Court for the Western District of Wiscon-
sin’s grant of Target Corporation’s (“Target”) motion for
summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for
the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,775,260 (the “’260
patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,787,933 (the “’933 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 9,489,690 (the “’690 patent”), U.S. Patent
No. 9,990,670 ( the “’670 patent”), U.S. Patent
No. 7,231,380 (the “’380 patent”), and U.S. Patent
No. 7,819,315 (the “’315 patent”). See Innovaport, LLC
v. Target Corp., No. 22-CV-425-WMC, 2024 WL 451308,
at *7 (W.D. Wis. Feb. 6, 2024) (“Decision”). For the follow-
ing reasons, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
On January 20, 2023, Innovaport filed the operative
First Amended Complaint, accusing Target of infringing
one or more of the asserted claims of the ’260, ’933, ’690,
’670, ’380, and ’315 patents.1 J.A. 201–31; see Decision
at *1. The asserted patents each claim priority to U.S. Pro-
visional Application No. 60/158,444 and share, in relevant
part, a specification. See Decision at *1. The asserted pa-
tents claim systems and methods for providing product lo-
cation within a store. See, e.g., ’260 patent col. 16 ll. 26–57;
1 The asserted claims are: Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 9–11,
and 15–17 of the ’260 patent; claims 1, 3, 6, and 7 of the
’933 patent; claims 1, 4–6, and 9–14 of the ’690 patent;
claims 1, 2, 4, 6–10, 12, and 14 of the ’670 patent; claims 1,
5, 13, 14, 22, 24, and 25 of the ’380 patent; and claims 1–5,
9, 12, 14, and 16–19 of the ’315 patent. Brief in Support of
Target’s Motion for Summary Judgment at 2, Innovaport
LLC v. Target Corp., No. 22-CV-425-WMC, 2023 WL
9196617 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 28, 2023), Dkt. No. 49 (“Target
Summary Judgment Brief”).
Case: 24-1545 Document: 34 Page: 2 Filed: 02/06/2026

-- 2 of 17 --

INNOVAPORT LLC v. TARGET CORPORATION 3
’933 patent col. 16 l. 32 to col. 17 l. 3; ’690 patent col. 16
ll. 18–45; ’670 patent col. 16 l. 41 to col. 17 l. 9; ’380 patent
col. 16 l. 40 to col. 17 l. 5; ’315 patent col. 16 ll. 24–50. The
asserted patents explain that in stores that sell many prod-
ucts, shoppers may struggle to locate desired goods. ’260
patent col. 1 ll. 38–46. The asserted patents criticize prior
art signs as being “difficult to read” and “limited in that
only a small amount of information can be fit onto the
signs.” ’260 patent col. 1 ll. 47–57. The asserted patents
also explain that “asking an employee of the store to direct
them to the products they are looking for” has the “signifi-
cant disadvantages” that “store employees are not always
able to provide clear instructions and, indeed, frequently
do not themselves know where various products are lo-
cated,” and that “a constant barrage of product location
questions to employees from shoppers invariably detracts
from the employees’ productivity.” ’260 patent col. 1 l. 58
to col. 2 l. 12. Moreover, the asserted patents note that
“many modern stores have a computerized or other infor-
mation system that is utilized to keep track of the stores’
inventory.” ’260 patent col. 2 ll. 21–29. The asserted pa-
tents seek to solve these issues with methods and systems
for providing product location information within a store.
See, e.g., ’260 patent col. 3 l. 15 to col. 4 l. 10.
Claim 15 of the ’260 patent, which the district court
found to be representative, Decision at *7, recites:
15. A method of providing product location infor-
mation within a first store, the method comprising:
providing a hub that is at least indirectly in
communication with each of a plurality of
user interfaces, and that is capable of ac-
cessing at least one database, the at least
one database including both product loca-
tion information and additional product-re-
lated information,
Case: 24-1545 Document: 34 Page: 3 Filed: 02/06/2026

-- 3 of 17 --

INNOVAPORT LLC v. TARGET CORPORATION 4
wherein the additional product-related in-
formation includes: information concern-
ing a quantity of a first product within the
store; information concerning a price of the
product; information concerning an availa-
bility or unavailability of the product
within the store; and information linking
the product with another product in a
cross-referential manner;
periodically engaging in the communica-
tion with each of the user interfaces,
wherein the engaging in the communica-
tion includes: receiving inquiry signals
from the user interfaces; querying the da-
tabase to obtain portions of the product lo-
cation information in response to the
inquiry signals; and providing information
signals in response to the inquiry signals
for receipt by the user interfaces, wherein
the information signals include portions of
both the product location information and
the additional product-related information,
whereby the user interfaces are able to pro-
vide output signals based upon the infor-
mation signals; wherein at least some of
the communication is wireless communica-
tion.
’260 patent claim 15. Several other claims are narrower.
For example, claim 1 of the ’933 patent recites:
1. A method of providing product location infor-
mation within a first store, the method comprising:
providing a plurality of devices including a
mobile device, wherein the plurality of de-
vices are in communication with one an-
other, wherein at least one of the devices
includes at least one user interface, and
Case: 24-1545 Document: 34 Page: 4 Filed: 02/06/2026

-- 4 of 17 --

INNOVAPORT LLC v. TARGET CORPORATION 5
wherein at least one of the devices includes
at least one information storage device,
wherein the at least one information stor-
age device includes both product location
information and additional product-related
information that includes information re-
garding at least one of information concern-
ing a quantity of a first product within the
store, information concerning a price of the
product, information concerning a presence
or absence of the product within the store,
information concerning a time at which the
product should be available at the store if
the product is currently absent from the
store, and information linking the product
with another product in a cross-referential
manner, and further information concern-
ing at least one past location inquiry of a
customer;
receiving an input signal at least indirectly
by way of the at least one user interface;
querying the information storage device to
obtain portions of the product location in-
formation and the additional product-re-
lated information in response to the input
signal; and
providing a product location information
signal in response to the input signal, for
receipt by the at least one user interface,
whereby the at least one user interface is
able to provide an output signal based upon
the product location information signal,
wherein the output signal provides at least
one suggestion to the customer in accord-
ance with one or more preferences of the
Case: 24-1545 Document: 34 Page: 5 Filed: 02/06/2026

-- 5 of 17 --

INNOVAPORT LLC v. TARGET CORPORATION 6
customer, including location information
concerning a location of at least one item of
interest to the customer, the one or more
preferences being obtained at least in part
based upon the further information.
’933 patent claim 1; see Decision at *7.
Target moved for summary judgment of invalidity of all
asserted claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, while Innovaport
cross-moved for partial summary judgment as to Target’s
§ 101 defense. See Decision at *1. The district court
granted Target’s motion and denied Innovaport’s motion.
Innovaport timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pur-
suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
II. DISCUSSION
“We review the court’s grant of summary judgment un-
der the law of the regional circuit; here, the Seventh Cir-
cuit’s de novo standard.” Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd.
v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1046–47 (Fed. Cir.
2016). “The issue of patent-eligibility under § 101 is a
question of law that we review without deference.” Id.
at 1047.
To determine whether a patent claim is directed to pa-
tent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, we ap-
ply the two-step framework set forth by the Supreme Court
in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Lab’ys, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66 (2012) and Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank
Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). At step one, we determine
whether the claims at issue are “directed to” a patent-inel-
igible concept. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217; accord Mayo,
566 U.S. at 77. At step two, we “consider the elements of
each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combina-
tion’ to determine whether the additional elements ‘trans-
form the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible
application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 78–79). The Supreme Court has described the
Case: 24-1545 Document: 34 Page: 6 Filed: 02/06/2026

-- 6 of 17 --

INNOVAPORT LLC v. TARGET CORPORATION 7
step two analysis “as a search for an ‘inventive concept.’”
Id. at 217 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72).
On appeal, Innovaport contends that the district court
erred by determining claim 15 of the ’260 patent to be rep-
resentative of all the asserted claims across the six patents,
Appellant’s Br. 17–23, and by holding various claims inva-
lid based on patent-ineligible subject matter at both step
one and step two, Appellant’s Br. 23–63. In its briefing and
at oral argument, Innovaport presented argument on four
sets of claims: (1) claim 1 of the ’933 patent, Appellant’s
Br. 39–41, 50–51; (2) claim 15 of the ’260 patent, Appel-
lant’s Br. 41–42, 51–52; (3) claim 1 of the ’670 patent and
claim 1 of the ’690 patent, Appellant’s Br. 34–39, 44–50,
54–55, which it concedes “rise and fall together,” Oral Arg.
13:10–13:20, https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-argu-
ments/24-1545_08062025.mp3; and (4) various claims of
the ’315 patent and the ’380 patent, Appellant’s Br. 52–54.
We need not address Innovaport’s representativeness ar-
gument, because even if we agreed that the differences
among the claims are “material to the eligibility analysis,”
we would still hold that “each separate claim (i.e., those not
fairly represented by the purported representative claim)
is ineligible for patenting.” Mobile Acuity Ltd. v. Blippar
Ltd., 110 F.4th 1280, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2024); King Pharms.,
Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(“As an appellate court, we are not limited to a district
court’s stated reasons for invalidating claims and can af-
firm a grant of summary judgment on any ground sup-
ported by the record and adequately raised below.”); Target
Summary Judgment Brief at 9–21 (addressing all asserted
claims); see Decision at *7 (addressing Innovaport’s
“strongest example,” claim 1 of the ’933 patent). Accord-
ingly, at each step of the Alice/Mayo test, we begin by ad-
dressing and rejecting Innovaport’s challenges applicable
Case: 24-1545 Document: 34 Page: 7 Filed: 02/06/2026

-- 7 of 17 --

INNOVAPORT LLC v. TARGET CORPORATION 8
to claim 1 of the ’933 patent,2 before explaining why none
of the other claims are patent eligible.
A.
We start with Innovaport’s challenges to the district
court’s analysis under Alice/Mayo step one. As an initial
matter, we reject Innovaport’s argument that the district
court erred by characterizing all of the asserted claims as
“directed to the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, re-
trieving, and displaying information,” specifically
by: “(1) collecting product-related information; (2) analyz-
ing the product information (i.e., cross-referentially linking
the products); (3) receiving a product-location inquiry;
(4) retrieving product-location information in response to
the query; and (5) presenting the product-location infor-
mation plus some additional information.” Decision at *4;
see Appellant’s Br. 23–31. Innovaport contends that in-
stead, the claims are “directed to a specific organization of
data that produces a particular response when a customer
submits a product location inquiry,” implemented by “link-
ing related products in a database and providing a sugges-
tion regarding a product.” Appellant’s Br. 27. We disagree.
The district court’s characterization accurately reflects
that claim 1 of the ’933 patent, for example, covers “receiv-
ing an input signal” from a user interface, “querying the
information storage device to obtain portions of the product
location information and the additional product-related in-
formation in response to the input signal,” “providing a
product location information signal in response to the input
signal . . . based upon the product location information sig-
nal,” and “provid[ing] at least one suggestion to the
2 A number of Innovaport’s arguments are directed
to all asserted claims. See Appellant’s Br. 23–34. We ad-
dress those arguments with respect to all asserted claims
in the discussion regarding claim 1 of the ’933 patent.
Case: 24-1545 Document: 34 Page: 8 Filed: 02/06/2026

-- 8 of 17 --

INNOVAPORT LLC v. TARGET CORPORATION 9
customer in accordance with one or more preferences of the
customer.” ’933 patent claim 1. Beyond the addition of the
words “specific organization of data,” Innovaport’s charac-
terization of the claims is not meaningfully different from
the district court’s characterization—both characteriza-
tions capture “linking the products” and “presenting [ ]
product-location information” and “additional information”
after a user submits “a product-location inquiry.” Compare
Appellant’s Br. 27, with Decision at *4. There is no “spe-
cific organization of data” claimed beyond the functionally-
claimed linking of two products. Accordingly, we agree
with the district court’s characterization of the asserted
claims.
We also agree with the district court that claim 1 of the
’933 patent is directed to an “abstract idea” of “collecting,
analyzing, retrieving, and displaying information,” and
“customizing information.” Decision at *4, *7.3 “[A] telltale
sign of abstraction” is when the claimed functions are
“mental processes that ‘can be performed in the human
mind’ or ‘using a pencil and paper.’” PersonalWeb Techs.
LLC v. Google LLC, 8 F.4th 1310, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2021)
(quoting CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
654 F.3d 1366, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). We have previ-
ously held “analyzing information by steps people go
through in their minds” and “collecting information, in-
cluding when limited to particular content” to be abstract
ideas. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d
1350, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[M]erely presenting the
results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing in-
formation, without more (such as identifying a particular
3 The district court held that all asserted claims were
directed to “collecting, analyzing, retrieving, and display-
ing information,” Decision at *4, and added “customizing
information” for claim 1 of the ’933 patent, Decision at *7.
Case: 24-1545 Document: 34 Page: 9 Filed: 02/06/2026

-- 9 of 17 --

INNOVAPORT LLC v. TARGET CORPORATION 10
tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of
such collection and analysis.”).
Claim 1 of the ’933 patent requires: (1) “receiving an
input signal;” (2) “querying [an] information storage device
to obtain portions of the product location information and
the additional product-related information;” (3) “providing
a product location information signal;” and providing “at
least one suggestion to the customer in accordance with one
or more preferences of the customer, including location in-
formation concerning a location of at least one item of in-
terest to the customer.” Each of these steps could be
performed by humans, or on pen and paper. A store clerk
could receive a question from a customer regarding where
a product is, use a catalog to determine where that product
is, tell a customer where that product is, and give that cus-
tomer a suggestion of another product location based on
past inquiries from the customer. Thus, claim 1 of the ’933
patent is focused on “‘collecting information, analyzing it,
and displaying certain results,’ which places [it] in the ‘fa-
miliar class of claims “directed to” a patent-ineligible con-
cept.’” Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., 72 F.4th
1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting Elec. Power, 830 F.3d
at 1353). Even though claim 1 of the ’933 patent requires
a “mobile device” and an “information storage device,” it
does not alter the analysis. See, e.g., In re TLI Commc’ns
LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(“[A]lthough the claims limit the abstract idea to a partic-
ular environment—a mobile telephone system—that does
not make the claims any less abstract for the step 1 analy-
sis.”). Thus, claim 1 of the ’933 patent is directed to an ab-
stract idea.
The specification confirms that the asserted claims are
directed to an abstract idea using computers as a tool, not
an improvement in computer capabilities. For “software-
based inventions” such as this one, “Alice/Mayo step one
‘often turns on whether the claims focus on the specific as-
serted improvement in computer capabilities or, instead,
Case: 24-1545 Document: 34 Page: 10 Filed: 02/06/2026

-- 10 of 17 --

INNOVAPORT LLC v. TARGET CORPORATION 11
on a process that qualifies as an abstract idea for which
computers are invoked merely as a tool.’” Trinity, 72 F.4th
at 1362–63 (quoting In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1382
(Fed. Cir. 2022)). The specification describes the business
drawbacks of shoppers “asking an employee of the store to
direct them to the products they are looking for,” ’260 pa-
tent col. 1 l. 58 to col. 2 l. 12, and recites “generic compu-
ting terms,” Trinity, 72 F.4th at 1364, such as “user
interfaces,” ’260 patent col. 4 l. 59, “a central computer da-
tabase,” id. col. 5 ll. 30–31, “standard communications pro-
tocols,” id. col. 5 l. 65, and “a standard typewriter
(QWERTY-type) keyboard,” id. col. 10 l. 14–15. In other
words, the specification focuses on how to solve a business
problem using off-the-shelf technology, rather than an im-
provement to computer technology. The specification sup-
ports holding that the claims are directed to an abstract
idea.
Innovaport contends that the asserted “claims recite a
‘specific technique’ that improved the technical functioning
of the computer network, e.g., linking related products in
the database provided a more efficient way to store product
information and to present pertinent information to a cus-
tomer (including information that was not requested by the
customer) in response to an inquiry.” Appellant’s Br. 29.
Similarly, Innovaport contends that claim 1 of the ’933 pa-
tent is not abstract because it recites “providing a sugges-
tion for an ‘item of interest’ based upon a past search of a
customer.” Appellant’s Br. 40.
However, the purported technical advantage In-
novaport suggests is that “the customer[s] receive[ ] infor-
mation in real-time about the product they were looking for
(e.g., product location of a toothbrush) and information
about related products that was not requested (e.g., floss is
on sale).” Appellant’s Br. 29. But “improving a user’s ex-
perience while using a computer application is not, without
more, sufficient to render the claims directed to an im-
provement in computer functionality” or the functionality
Case: 24-1545 Document: 34 Page: 11 Filed: 02/06/2026

-- 11 of 17 --

INNOVAPORT LLC v. TARGET CORPORATION 12
of the “network platform itself.” Customedia Techs., LLC
v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
2020); see, e.g., Trinity, 72 F.4th at 1364 (“[A]sserted claims
can be directed to an abstract idea even if the claims re-
quire generic computer components or require operations
that a human could not perform as quickly as a com-
puter.”); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1351–54 (affirming judg-
ment of invalidity under section 101 where claims cover
real-time monitoring of a power grid). And both linking
products and providing users suggestions based on their
preferences and history are longstanding methods of hu-
man activity, not new technological innovations. See, e.g.,
Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315,
1327–28 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding claims on “organizing
and accessing records through the creation of an index-
searchable database” directed to an abstract idea and not-
ing that libraries “organize and cross-reference infor-
mation and resources”); Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One
Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(holding claims on tailoring information based on a
“viewer’s location” or “navigation data” are directed to an
abstract idea).
This case is distinguishable from the cases cited by In-
novaport. For example, Innovaport relies on Data Engine
Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999, 1003,
1010–11 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which we held that claims di-
rected to a “method of implementing a notebook-tabbed in-
terface, which allows users to easily navigate through
three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets” were patent el-
igible, and SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
930 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2019), in which we held to
be patent-eligible claims directed to “using a plurality of
network monitors that each analyze specific types of data
on the network and integrating reports from the monitors.”
Appellant’s Br. 27–29. Unlike here, the claims in each of
those cases were patent-eligible because they presented
technological solutions to technological problems. Thus,
Case: 24-1545 Document: 34 Page: 12 Filed: 02/06/2026

-- 12 of 17 --

INNOVAPORT LLC v. TARGET CORPORATION 13
we agree with the district court that claim 1 of the ’933 pa-
tent is directed to an abstract idea.4
The remaining claims fare no better. Innovaport notes
that claim 15 of the ’260 patent is the “broadest of the 55
asserted claims.” Appellant’s Br. 17. Innovaport contends
that claim 15 of the ’260 patent “recites storing specific
types of information in a database in addition to product
location information,” and “specifies that at least some of
the communication within the system is wireless commu-
nication, which further limits the configuration of the re-
cited claim elements.” Appellant’s Br. 41–42. Storing
specific types of information is merely “collecting infor-
mation,” which falls “within the realm of abstract ideas.”
Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1353. And wireless communica-
tion is a “routine process[ ] implemented by a general-pur-
pose device (e.g., a handheld mobile device) in a
conventional way.” United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. PNC Bank
N.A., 139 F.4th 1332, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (holding pa-
tent-ineligible a claim that included a limitation of “using
4 Innovaport contends throughout that the district
court erred by deviating from its prior reasoning in In-
novaport LLC v. Lowe’s Home Ctrs., LLC, No. 21-CV-418-
WMC, 2022 WL 1078548, at *1–3 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 11,
2022), in which the same judge denied a Rule 12(b)(6) mo-
tion to dismiss several of the same claims at issue here.
See, e.g., Appellant’s Br. 8–10, 12–14, 24–26, 38–39, 41–43.
Innovaport cites no basis to preclude the district court from
changing its mind about the merits of Innovaport’s litiga-
tion position. Cf. Beacon Oil Co. v. O’Leary, 71 F.3d 391,
395 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“[T]here can be no collateral estoppel
against a [party] who has not had ‘a full and fair oppor-
tunity to litigate the claim’ at issue.” (second alteration in
original) (quoting Mendenhall v. Cedarapids, Inc., 5 F.3d
1557, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).
Case: 24-1545 Document: 34 Page: 13 Filed: 02/06/2026

-- 13 of 17 --

INNOVAPORT LLC v. TARGET CORPORATION 14
a wireless network”). Thus, claim 15 is directed to an ab-
stract idea.
Innovaport contends that claim 1 of the ’670 patent and
claim 1 of the ’690 patent are not directed to an abstract
idea because they recite “information storage device[s]”
that “include[ ] both product location information and ad-
ditional product-related information linking a product with
an other [sic] product in a cross-referential manner,” along
with an output signal that “includes location information
concerning the product and also provides at least one sug-
gestion related to the other product.” Appellant’s Br. 34;
’670 patent claim 1; see ’690 patent claim 1. Innovaport’s
example of this is that “if a customer searches for a tooth-
brush, the output signal may include location information
for the toothbrush (as requested by the customer) and ad-
ditional information about a sale on floss (which was not
requested by the customer).” Appellant’s Br. 34. As the
specification explains, the information storage device can
be a generic computer with “processing circuitry and a da-
tabase containing product location information,” ’260 pa-
tent col. 3 ll. 32–38, and the output signal, as exemplified
by Innovaport’s toothbrush hypothetical, is a patent-ineli-
gible “method of organizing human activity.” Alice,
573 U.S. at 220. Claim 1 of the ’670 and claim 1 of the ’690
patent, which “rise and fall together,” Oral Arg. at 13:10–
20, are directed to an abstract idea.5
5 Innovaport contends that, because claim 1 of the
’670 patent and claim 1 of the ’690 patent overcame a § 101
challenge during examination, the district court failed to
apply the presumption of validity. Appellant’s Br. 54–55.
However, “[t]here is no indication the district court failed
to presume the patents were valid. And courts are not re-
quired to defer to Patent Office determinations as to eligi-
bility.” Sanderling Mgmt. Ltd. v. Snap Inc., 65 F.4th 698,
705 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
Case: 24-1545 Document: 34 Page: 14 Filed: 02/06/2026

-- 14 of 17 --

INNOVAPORT LLC v. TARGET CORPORATION 15
The ’380 and the ’315 patents contain system claims.
Innovaport contends that the following limitations render
certain claims of the ’380 and ’315 patents non-abstract, see
Appellant’s Br. 52–54: (1) A “user interface” positioned in
a store “in a substantially stationary manner,” see ’380 pa-
tent claim 1; ’315 patent claim 1; (2) “a database containing
product location information and additional product-re-
lated information including product availability infor-
mation,” see ’380 patent claim 1; (3) an information signal
that, when a product is unavailable, is configured “so that
the output signal provided by the user interface does not
provide an indication that the product is available at the
location,” see ’380 patent claim 1; (4) updating the database
“to reflect changes in inventory occurring within the store,”
see ’380 patent claim 22; (5) storage in a database of “prod-
uct location information, product availability information,
and product promotion information,” see ’380 patent claim
25; (6) “a hub,” see ’315 patent claim 1; and (7) “a receiver
configured to receive” “a voice signal” and “a speaker con-
figured to provide” “a synthesized voice signal,” see ’315 pa-
tent claim 2. We have reviewed the asserted claims of the
’380 and ’315 patents and conclude that nothing in them
meaningfully differentiates them from claim 1 of the ’933
patent. All asserted claims of both the ’380 and ’315 pa-
tents either add conventional technology or additional ab-
stract ideas that do not render the claims directed to non-
abstract ideas. Accordingly, we conclude that all 55 as-
serted claims are directed to abstract ideas at Alice/Mayo
step one.
B.
We now turn to Innovaport’s challenges to the district
court’s analysis under Alice/Mayo step two. Appellant’s
Br. 42–52. Innovaport contends that claim 1 of the ’933 pa-
tent, claim 1 of the ’670, and claim 1 of the ’690 patent each
contain an inventive concept in the combination of “link-
ing” two products together in a cross-referential manner,
giving a “suggestion” to a customer for another product,
Case: 24-1545 Document: 34 Page: 15 Filed: 02/06/2026

-- 15 of 17 --

INNOVAPORT LLC v. TARGET CORPORATION 16
when the customer searches for one product, and using a
“mobile device.”6 See Appellant’s Br. 42–52. Each of these
purported inventive concepts fails, either alone or in com-
bination.
“Linking” two products in a cross-referential manner
and providing a recommendation about another product
are not inventive concepts because they are merely the ab-
stract ideas. “It has been clear since Alice that a claimed
invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is di-
rected cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the
invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.”
BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290
(Fed. Cir. 2018).
The “mobile device” does not provide an inventive con-
cept because it is a “mere recitation of a generic computer”
that “cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea
into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223.
The specification discloses that the mobile devices “can in-
clude, for example, telephone or walkie-talkie type units,
headphones, specialized eyeware, etc.” ’260 patent col. 14
ll. 42–44. Accordingly, “the mobile device is a piece of ge-
neric hardware,” USAA, 139 F.4th at 1339, that does not
save the asserted claims at Alice/Mayo step two.
Nor is this a case where an “ordered combination of
limitations” gives rise to an inventive concept. Bascom
Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d
1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claims recite nothing
more than routine business steps, implemented on a com-
puter, rather than “fundamentally chang[ing] or im-
prov[ing] how a computer functions.” USAA, 139 F.4th
at 1339; cf. Appellant’s Br. 47–49 (citing Bascom, 827 F.3d
6 As noted above, the “suggestion” in the ’933 patent
is based on a user’s past inquiries, while the ’670 and ’690
patents contain no such limitation.
Case: 24-1545 Document: 34 Page: 16 Filed: 02/06/2026

-- 16 of 17 --

INNOVAPORT LLC v. TARGET CORPORATION 17
at 1350–51). Innovaport has not identified any inventive
concept arising from any claims, individually or in an or-
dered combination.
Lastly, Innovaport contends that summary judgment
should be denied because there are still material disputes
of fact, namely that cross-referencing, providing sugges-
tions based on past searches, and receiving inquiries on
mobile devices were unconventional and not well-under-
stood or routine. Appellant’s Br. 61–62. There is no genu-
ine dispute as to any material fact: Cross-referencing and
providing suggestions are abstract ideas, so even if they are
“‘[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,’ . . . that
is not enough for eligibility.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic,
LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (first alteration
in original) (quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myr-
iad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013)). Additionally,
as discussed above, the asserted patents themselves indi-
cate the mobile devices are generic and conventional. Ac-
cordingly, the district court did not err by granting
summary judgment.
III. CONCLUSION
We have considered Innovaport’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive.7 We affirm the district
court’s judgment that the asserted claims are invalid under
§ 101.
AFFIRMED
7 Innovaport’s argument regarding patent office eli-
gibility guidance is unpersuasive. Appellant’s Br. 55–61.
Patent office guidance “is not, itself, the law of patent eli-
gibility, does not carry the force of law, and is not binding
in our patent eligibility analysis.” In re Rudy, 956 F.3d
1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Case: 24-1545 Document: 34 Page: 17 Filed: 02/06/2026

-- 17 of 17 --