Cascades Branding Innovation LLC v. Aldi, Inc.

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CASCADES BRANDING INNOVATION LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
ALDI, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-1729
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois in No. 1:21-cv-06563, Judge
Nancy L. Maldonado.
______________________
Decided: September 25, 2025
______________________
WILLIAM W. FLACHSBART, Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig
PLLC, Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also
represented by MARK MAGAS.
ROBERT L. LEE, Alston & Bird LLP, Atlanta, GA, ar-
gued for defendant-appellee.
______________________
Before DYK, LINN, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 24-1729 Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 09/25/2025

-- 1 of 9 --

CASCADES BRANDING INNOVATION LLC v. ALDI, INC. 2
LINN, Circuit Judge.
Cascades Branding Innovation LLC (“Cascades”) ap-
peals the dismissal with prejudice of its patent infringe-
ment suit against Aldi, Inc. under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
for failure to state a claim. See Cascades Branding Inno-
vation LLC v. Aldi, Inc., 728 F. Supp. 3d 917 (N.D. Ill. 2024)
(“Dismissal Op.”). The district court held that all of the
claims of Cascades’ asserted patents—U.S. Patent Nos.
7,768,395 (“’395 patent”); 8,106,766 (“’766 patent”); and
8,405,504 (“’504 patent”)—were invalid as patent-ineligible
under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Id. at 921.
Because we write for the parties in this non-preceden-
tial opinion, we assume familiarity with the facts. We af-
firm.
BACKGROUND
The patents at issue were all filed in June 2007. For
purposes of this appeal, the parties argue all claims of all
asserted patents together, treating claim 1 of the ’395 pa-
tent as representative. We do the same. That claim re-
cites:
1. A method comprising:
(A) displaying, using a device, a first image associ-
ated with a first brand;
(B) receiving, from a user of the device, an indica-
tion of a selection by the user of the first image;
(C) identifying a first location of the device inde-
pendently of any location-specifying input provided
by the user to the device;
(D) identifying a first brand access site at which a
first branded entity having the first brand is acces-
sible; and
(E) providing to the user, using the device, a first
map image which describes a first geographic area
Case: 24-1729 Document: 27 Page: 2 Filed: 09/25/2025

-- 2 of 9 --

CASCADES BRANDING INNOVATION LLC v. ALDI, INC. 3
derived from the first location of the device and
which includes a first indication of the first brand
access site, wherein the first indication of the first
brand access site comprises a second image associ-
ated with the first brand, located at a position in
the first map image corresponding to the first
brand access site.
’395 patent at claim 1.
Broadly summarizing the claims, the district court ex-
plained that the user of an electronic device is presented
with images associated with different brands, the user se-
lects a particular brand, the device identifies the brand’s
locations with no further inputs and displays a map of the
surrounding area with nearby “brand access sites” where
the brand’s products may be purchased. Dismissal Op.,
728 F. Supp. 3d at 922–23.
Cascades accused Aldi’s proprietary mobile applica-
tion (“app”) of infringement. That app allows users to se-
lect the Aldi logo to open the app, which then shows the
location of nearby Aldi supermarkets based on the user’s
GPS location.
Applying Alice step 1, the district court held that the
claims were “directed at the abstract idea of collecting geo-
graphic information about the location of a device and
nearby stores or businesses offering certain products, and
displaying that information to the user.” Id. at 928. The
district court explained that the claims “merely use func-
tional language to describe the desired result, without any
technological details about how that result is implemented
or that improves on existing computer technology.” Id. at
929; see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S.
208, 218 (2014). At Alice step 2, the district court held that
the claims lack an inventive concept because the limita-
tions are all described “in highly generic functional terms,”
the patents “do not include any technical details about how
these steps are to be implemented,” and there is no
Case: 24-1729 Document: 27 Page: 3 Filed: 09/25/2025

-- 3 of 9 --

CASCADES BRANDING INNOVATION LLC v. ALDI, INC. 4
suggestion of unconventional or new computer technology
required. Dismissal Op., 728 F. Supp. 3d at 930–31.
As a result, the district court determined that the
claims were patent ineligible and dismissed the infringe-
ment case for failure to state a claim. Id. at 934. The dis-
trict court denied Cascades leave to amend, concluding
that no amendments to the complaint could cure the eligi-
bility issue “as a matter of law,” and therefore issued the
dismissal with prejudice. Id. at 934–35.
Cascades argues that the district court erred in both
steps and abused its discretion in issuing the dismissal
with prejudice.
DISCUSSION
I
We review motions to dismiss under the law of the re-
gional circuit. OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788
F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Seventh Circuit re-
views the grant of a 12(b)(6) motion de novo, assuming “all
well-pleaded allegations are true and draw[ing] all reason-
able inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”
Manistee Apartments, LLC v. City of Chicago, 844 F.3d 630,
633 (7th Cir. 2016). The Seventh Circuit generally reviews
the denial of leave to amend for abuse of discretion. Run-
nion v. Girl Scouts of Greater Chicago & NW Indiana, 786
F.3d 510, 524 (7th Cir. 2015). “But when the basis for de-
nial is futility, we apply the legal sufficiency standard
of Rule 12(b)(6) to determine whether the proposed
amended complaint fails to state a claim. Accordingly, our
review for abuse of discretion of futility-based denials in-
cludes de novo review of the legal basis for the futility.” Id.
(citations omitted).
We review the ultimate determination of patent eligi-
bility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under Federal Circuit law de
Case: 24-1729 Document: 27 Page: 4 Filed: 09/25/2025

-- 4 of 9 --

CASCADES BRANDING INNOVATION LLC v. ALDI, INC. 5
novo. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
2018).
II
Cascades argues that the district court too broadly
characterized the claims under Alice Step 1 and ignored
that the claims cover an improvement over conventional
mapping devices. Cascades contends this improvement is
achieved by allowing users to “select a particular brand
identifying image” and display “a map image indicating a
current location of the device and showing the locations of
any one or more brand access sites for the selected brand
that are located in proximity to the user” without the user
providing location-specifying information. Cascades Open-
ing Br. at 19–20. According to Cascades, this is an im-
provement because it allows users to find brand locations
“more quickly and easily.” Id. at 24; ’395 patent col. 1 ll.
59–62.
Aldi responds that the district court correctly charac-
terized the claims, which simply require basic functional
steps without claiming how any of those steps are accom-
plished, and which may all be performed, according to the
specification, using generic prior art components like a
GPS and touch screen monitor.
We see no error in the district court’s characterization
or its determination that the claims are directed to an ab-
stract idea. The only aspect of the claims Cascades argues
is missing from the district court’s characterization is that
the user selects the brand to be located via an icon or pic-
ture rather than requiring the user to write out the brand
in text form—what Cascades says is an improvement in
mapping functionality. Cascades Opening Br. at 19; Cas-
cades Reply Br. at 5; ’395 patent col. 3 ll. 33–47 (noting that
the invention is “directed to a device that enables a user
to . . . select a particular brand identifying image”). As the
district court correctly held, however, the claims do not de-
scribe any technological details about how that result is
Case: 24-1729 Document: 27 Page: 5 Filed: 09/25/2025

-- 5 of 9 --

CASCADES BRANDING INNOVATION LLC v. ALDI, INC. 6
implemented. We thus see no error in the district court’s
characterization of the claims as directed to collecting geo-
graphic information about the location of a device and
nearby stores or businesses offering certain products, and
displaying that information to the user, rather than a tech-
nological improvement in mapping functionality.
We generally hold claims directed to nothing more than
collecting, analyzing, and displaying information, even
when limited to a particular field of endeavor, to be ab-
stract. See Elec. Pwr. Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d
1350, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claims in Electric
Power, for example, tracked real-time changes to an inter-
connected power grid but did not claim a particular way of
collecting, analyzing, or displaying the data. Because the
claims did not focus on “any particular assertedly inventive
technology for performing those functions” of “gathering
and analyzing information of a specified content, then dis-
playing the results,” they were held to be directed to an ab-
stract idea. Id. at 1354. The claims here are substantively
indistinguishable.
The claims here are unlike the detailed and sophisti-
cated computerized 3-D animation techniques relying on
rules held to be patent eligible in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai
Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313 (Fed. Cir.
2016). The claims in McRO allowed computers to produce
“accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial ex-
pressions in animated characters.” Id. (citation omitted).
This was achieved by requiring “that the rules be rendered
in a specific way: as a relationship between sub-sequences
of phonemes, timing, and the weight to which each pho-
neme is expressed visually at a particular timing (as rep-
resented by the morph weight set).” Id. at 1315 (emphasis
added). Unlike Cascades’ claims, the claims in McRO went
“beyond merely organizing existing information into a new
form” and did not “simply use a computer as a tool to auto-
mate conventional activity.” Id. at 1314–15. Cascades’ re-
liance on McRO, therefore, is misplaced.
Case: 24-1729 Document: 27 Page: 6 Filed: 09/25/2025

-- 6 of 9 --

CASCADES BRANDING INNOVATION LLC v. ALDI, INC. 7
III
Cascades argues that the claims include an inventive
step at Alice step 2. Cascades points to the specification’s
discussion of the three prior art techniques for locating
businesses on a map, ’395 patent col. 1 ll. 12–53, arguing
that the claimed invention improves the speed by which a
user may locate a business.
We agree with the district court that the highly generic
functional steps claimed here do not contain an inventive
step beyond preexisting and conventional computer tech-
nology. “[S]electing information, by content or source, for
collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to
differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.”
Elec. Pwr. Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355. Nor does limiting the
gathering to a particular field of endeavor render the
claims eligible under step 2. Id. at 1354. Also similar to
Electric Power, the claims here do not require a “new source
or type of information[] or new technique[] for analyzing
it,” or “an arguably inventive set of components or meth-
ods . . . that would generate new data,” and “do not invoke
any assertedly inventive programming.” Id. at 1355.
As the district court noted, the patents themselves
state that generic and pre-existing computer functionality
can perform all the claimed steps. Dismissal Op., 728 F.
Supp. 3d at 933–34 (noting that Cascades does not dispute
that, as of the filing date, it was conventional for computers
to automatically detect the location of the device and
search for and locate businesses based on user inputs). In-
deed, the asserted patents acknowledge that “computer
systems and smart-devices already have the capability to
identify a device-user’s location using built-in GPS technol-
ogy, to display digital maps of the surrounding geographic
area without input from users, and to search for and collect
information about particular businesses to populate on the
map.” Id.; ’395 patent col. 4 ll. 32–51, col. 5 ll. 3–5, col. 7 ll.
35–40. We also agree that whatever speed advantage
Case: 24-1729 Document: 27 Page: 7 Filed: 09/25/2025

-- 7 of 9 --

CASCADES BRANDING INNOVATION LLC v. ALDI, INC. 8
comes from the purported inventive contribution—select-
ing a brand via an icon rather than writing the name of the
brand—comes from the conventional computer technology
itself rather than any inventive step. See Intellectual Ven-
tures I LLC v. Cap. One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed.
Cir. 2015) (holding that “merely adding computer function-
ality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does
not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea”).
IV
Finally, Cascades argues that the district court abused
its discretion by dismissing its case with prejudice due to
futility (an issue the Seventh Circuit reviews de novo), thus
violating the liberal standard for leave to amend under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
Cascades argues that the legal question of eligibility is
steeped in fact determinations and that, with leave to
amend, it could have demonstrated patent eligibility by al-
leging additional facts (from the specification and prosecu-
tion history), submitting additional expert declarations to
show that the components were not conventional or well-
understood, and submitting additional evidence about the
licensing success of the patents. Cascades does not dispute
that the district court has the authority to dismiss and
deny leave to amend if amending the complaint would be
futile. See Pugh v. Trib. Co., 521 F.3d 686, 698 (7th Cir.
2008).
We see no abuse of discretion in the district court’s dis-
missal with prejudice and no error in its futility determi-
nation. The conventionality of the various components was
well-established by the specification itself and no amend-
ment to the pleadings could plausibly allege otherwise.
The touch screen, the GPS location, and the display—
which constitute all of the limitations in the representative
claim—were indisputably conventional as of 2007. As the
district court noted, this is confirmed by the patents them-
selves, which allow the use of conventional off-the-shelf
Case: 24-1729 Document: 27 Page: 8 Filed: 09/25/2025

-- 8 of 9 --

CASCADES BRANDING INNOVATION LLC v. ALDI, INC. 9
components to accomplish all the steps of the method. Dis-
missal Op., 728 F. Supp. 3d at 931; ’395 patent at col. 1 ll.
12–13, col. 4 ll. 44–47, col. 5 ll. 1–5, col. 7 ll. 35–40. No
amount of new allegations or additional evidence could
change that reality or the patent’s specification. The dis-
trict court therefore did not err in concluding that amend-
ment of the complaint would be futile and that dismissal
with prejudice was in order.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the district
court’s determination of patent ineligibility and dismissal
with prejudice.
AFFIRMED
Case: 24-1729 Document: 27 Page: 9 Filed: 09/25/2025

-- 9 of 9 --