Longitude Licensing Ltd. v. Google LLC

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
LONGITUDE LICENSING LTD.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-1202
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California in No. 3:23-cv-03046-VC,
Judge Vince Chhabria.
______________________
Decided: April 30, 2025
______________________
AARON ROBERT F AHRENKROG, Robins Kaplan LLP,
Minneapolis, MN, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also rep-
resented by WILLIAM J ONES , SAMUEL J. LAROQUE, EMILY
T REMBLAY .
G INGER A NDERS , Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Wash-
ington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also repre-
sented by J. K AIN D AY.
______________________
Case: 24-1202 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 04/30/2025

-- 1 of 14 --

LONGITUDE LICENSING LTD. v. GOOGLE LLC 2
Before L OURIE, D YK, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
D YK, Circuit Judge.
Longitude Licensing Ltd. (“Longitude”) sued Google
LLC (“Google”) in the Northern District of California, al-
leging infringement of claims of U.S. Patents
Nos. 7,668,365 (the “’365 patent”), 8,355,574 (the “’574 pa-
tent”), 7,454,056 (the “’056 patent”), and 7,945,109 (the
“’109 patent”), all owned by Longitude. The district court
dismissed the complaint on the ground that the asserted
claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See
Longitude Licensing Ltd. v. Google, LLC, No. 23-CV-
03046-VC, 2023 WL 7109896, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27,
2023) (“Dismissal”). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
The four patents at issue are directed to performing
digital image correction techniques on a computer. The
’574 patent is a continuation of the ’365 patent, and the two
share a title and specification; the specifications of the ’056
and ’109 patents are not significantly different from that
shared specification. The specifications describe identify-
ing the subject, or “main object,” of an image and adjusting
the main object image data by using “correction condi-
tions,” which include any kind of “statistical values and
color values” that correspond to the “properties” of the
main object. See ’365 patent, col. 14 ll. 51–58; see also
’574 patent, col. 14 ll. 53–59; ’056 patent, col. 5 ll. 33–36,
53–59; ’109 patent, col. 9 l. 65–col. 10 l. 6.
On June 21, 2023, Longitude sued Google for infringe-
ment of claims of the four patents.1 Google filed a motion
1 Longitude also accused Google of infringing three
other patents that Google did not address in its motion to
dismiss. Those other patents are not at issue in this appeal
Case: 24-1202 Document: 38 Page: 2 Filed: 04/30/2025

-- 2 of 14 --

LONGITUDE LICENSING LTD. v. GOOGLE LLC 3
to dismiss, arguing that the claims of the four patents are
“directed to an abstract idea that merely uses computers as
a tool.” J.A. 256. Google treated claim 32 of the ’365 patent
as representative.
The ’365 patent is titled “Determination of Main Object
on Image and Improvement of Image Quality According to
Main Object.” Claim 32 of the ’365 patent recites:
32. An image processing method comprising:
determining the main object image data
corresponding to the main object character-
izing the image;
acquiring the properties of the determined
main object image data;
acquiring correction conditions correspond-
ing to the properties that have been ac-
quired; and
adjusting the picture quality of the main
object image data using the acquired cor-
rection conditions;
wherein each of the operations of the image
processing method is executed by an inte-
grated circuit.
Id. at col. 32 ll. 23–33. The ’365 patent acknowledges that
human users could previously “adjust picture quality using
retouching software,” id. at col. 1 ll. 14–15, but states that
already existing “automatic picture quality adjusting tech-
niques[] . . . [apply changes] across the board, without tak-
ing into consideration subtle differences in the main object
characterizing the image,” id. at col. 1 ll. 30–33.
and were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by Lon-
gitude before the district court.
Case: 24-1202 Document: 38 Page: 3 Filed: 04/30/2025

-- 3 of 14 --

LONGITUDE LICENSING LTD. v. GOOGLE LLC 4
On October 27, 2023, the district court granted the mo-
tion to dismiss. The district court also treated claim 32 as
representative and held that all the claims were directed
to the same abstract idea without supplying an inventive
concept, concluding that “the claim language in all four pa-
tents is functional and ends-oriented” and that it “need not
credit Longitude’s conclusory allegations in the complaint
that the claims ‘recite a specific way to improve a prior com-
puting process’ when that is not apparent from the claim
language read in light of the specification.” Dismissal at *1
(quoting J.A. 284).
Longitude timely filed this appeal. We have jurisdic-
tion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
D ISCUSSION
We review the grant of a motion to dismiss de novo.
Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., 72 F.4th 1355,
1360 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Patent eligibility is a question of law
that we review de novo. Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life
Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1273
(Fed. Cir. 2012).
Section 101 defines patent-eligible subject matter as
“any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has ex-
plained that there are certain “implicit” exceptions in
§ 101, namely, laws of nature, natural phenomena, and ab-
stract ideas. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Ge-
netics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013). To determine
whether a patent claim is subject matter ineligible, we ap-
ply the two-step Alice framework. Alice Corp. Ltd. v. CLS
Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014); see also Mayo Col-
laborative Servs. v. Prometheus Lab’ys, Inc., 566 U.S. 66,
77–80 (2012). At step one, we “determine whether the
claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible
concepts.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. At step two, we “consider
Case: 24-1202 Document: 38 Page: 4 Filed: 04/30/2025

-- 4 of 14 --

LONGITUDE LICENSING LTD. v. GOOGLE LLC 5
the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an or-
dered combination’ to determine whether the additional el-
ements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-
eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78–
79).
I
At Alice step one, the district court held that the claims
are drawn to the abstract idea of “improving image quality
by adjusting various aspects of an image based on features
of the main object in the image.” Dismissal at *1. We
agree.
A
We have repeatedly held that claims that organize, al-
ter, or manipulate data, without more, are patent ineligi-
ble. See Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
113 F.4th 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (collecting cases); see
also Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
850 F.3d 1332, 1340–41 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Elec. Power Grp.,
LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc.,
758 F.3d 1344, 1350–51 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Claims that
merely implement longstanding activities and mental pro-
cesses using new data and generic computing components
without explaining how these arrangements actually re-
sult in the claimed improvement are similarly directed to
unpatentable abstract ideas. See, e.g., Trinity, 72 F.4th
at 1361–62; Univ. of Fla. Rsch. Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec.
Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Such is the case here. The specification recognizes that
users could already “adjust picture quality using retouch-
ing software” and that “accurate adjustment of picture
quality requires experience and familiarity.” ’365 patent,
col. 1 ll. 13–17. Claim 32 of the ’365 patent merely uses a
computer to adjust parameters associated with the main
Case: 24-1202 Document: 38 Page: 5 Filed: 04/30/2025

-- 5 of 14 --

LONGITUDE LICENSING LTD. v. GOOGLE LLC 6
object data (rather than data of the entire image, an ap-
proach previously undertaken by humans) without ex-
plaining how this result is achieved.
Longitude argues that claim 32 is directed to an im-
proved digital image processing technique: “how to more
accurately adjust th[e] main object image data by using
correction conditions corresponding to that data’s proper-
ties.” Appellant’s Br. 6. The problem is that nothing in the
language of claim 32 in this respect does anything more
than describe the use of new data or explain how it is used
in the steps of “determining” the main object, “acquiring”
its properties, “acquiring correction conditions,” and “ad-
justing” the picture quality. ’365 patent, col. 32 ll. 23–33.
Claim 32 is similar to those found to be patent ineligible in
Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. Castle Retail, LLC,
60 F.4th 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2023), and Recentive Analytics,
Inc. v. Fox Corp., No. 2023-2437, 2025 WL 1142021
(Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025).
In Hawk, the claims involved methods of viewing mul-
tiple simultaneously displayed and stored video images
based on sets of “temporal and spatial parameters associ-
ated with each image.” 60 F.4th at 1353. We explained
that these claims were directed to an abstract idea because
they merely recited a method of “receiving, displaying, con-
verting, storing, and transmitting digital video ‘using re-
sult-based functional language.’” Id. at 1357 (quoting Two-
Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC,
874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). We rejected Hawk’s
argument, similar to Longitude’s argument here, that the
use of “parameters” made the claims not abstract, since the
claims did not “explain what those claimed parameters are
or how they should be manipulated.” Id. at 1357 (citation
omitted); see also Sanderling Mgmt. Ltd. v. Snap Inc.,
65 F.4th 698, 703 (Fed. Cir 2023) (holding unpatentable
claims directed to using a computer as “a tool to identify
when a condition is met and then to distribute information
Case: 24-1202 Document: 38 Page: 6 Filed: 04/30/2025

-- 6 of 14 --

LONGITUDE LICENSING LTD. v. GOOGLE LLC 7
based on satisfaction of that condition”). Similarly,
claim 32 describes “determining” a main object, “acquiring”
the main object image data and correction conditions, and
“adjusting” the main object image data’s parameters with-
out “sufficient recitation of how the purported invention
improve[s] the functionality” of image correction methods.
Hawk, 60 F.4th at 1358 (alteration in original) (quoting
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH, 942 F.3d
1143, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 2019)).
In Recentive, the claims were directed to the applica-
tion of machine learning for determining event schedules
and generating network maps for broadcasters. 2025 WL
1142021, at *1. The claims generally involved methods
comprising collecting data, using the data to train the ma-
chine learning model, and updating the event schedules
and network maps. We rejected the patentee’s argument
that “its patents are eligible because they apply machine
learning to [a] new field of use,” explaining that merely
adapting existing technology to a novel data environment
does not create patent eligibility. Id. at *6. We concluded
that even if there had been a claim of “a technological im-
provement, neither the claims nor the specifications de-
scribe how such an improvement was accomplished.” Id.
at *5. Here, too, Longitude urges that the use of new data
(e.g., the correspondence between the main object data and
correction conditions) represents a patent-eligible techno-
logical improvement. Because the claim “functionally de-
scribes a mere concept without disclosing how to
implement that concept,” id., we agree with the district
court that it is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
Longitude repeatedly faults the district court for osten-
sibly failing to consider claim 32 in light of the patent spec-
ification, seeking to analogize its claims to those found to
be patent eligible in McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games of
America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Longi-
tude argues that “[a]s in McRo, the intrinsic record . . .
Case: 24-1202 Document: 38 Page: 7 Filed: 04/30/2025

-- 7 of 14 --

LONGITUDE LICENSING LTD. v. GOOGLE LLC 8
shows that claim 32 is directed to an improved computing
process” because “[l]ike the claimed ‘rules’ in McRo, [the
claims’] correction conditions . . . provide how the claimed
process improves upon prior automated image adjustment
processes.” Appellant’s Br. 37–38 (internal quotation
marks omitted). But in McRo, we stressed that the lan-
guage of the claims themselves was “limited to rules with
specific characteristics.” 827 F.3d at 1313.
Here, claim 32 is framed entirely in functional, results-
oriented terms, and Longitude effectively asks us to import
disclosures from the specification into the claim so that it
provides the same degree of specificity as those in McRo.
This we decline to do. While step one requires that “we
consider the claims in light of the specification[,] [we] avoid
importing concepts from the specification into the claims.”
AI Visualize, Inc. v. Nuance Commc’ns, Inc., 97 F.4th 1371,
1378 (Fed. Cir. 2024); accord ChargePoint, Inc. v. Sema-
Connect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 766 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (explain-
ing that reliance on the specification “must always yield to
the claim language in identifying th[e] focus” of the claims);
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138,
1149 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The § 101 inquiry must focus on the
language of the Asserted Claims themselves.”); In re TLI
Commc’ns Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611–12 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (similar). The specific improvement purportedly re-
cited in claim 32 does not make it non-abstract because the
language of the claim does not explain how that improve-
ment is achieved.
B
Longitude apparently faults the district court for fail-
ing to consider a “distinct” improvement in digital image
processing techniques: “how to more accurately identify the
main object—meaning, what the image is a picture of—in
digital image data by analyzing image and position data.”
Appellant’s Br. 6. This concept appears in claim 32’s
Case: 24-1202 Document: 38 Page: 8 Filed: 04/30/2025

-- 8 of 14 --

LONGITUDE LICENSING LTD. v. GOOGLE LLC 9
limitation of “acquiring the properties of the determined
main object image data.” ’365 patent, col. 32 ll. 26–27.
Longitude argues that claim 5 of the ’365 patent is more
explicitly directed to this improvement:
5. An image processing device that determines the
main object which characterizes an image, the im-
age processing device comprising:
image data acquiring module that acquires
image data which is data of the target im-
age;
image data analyzing module that seg-
ments the image data into a plurality of ar-
eas for analysis in terms of area units;
position data acquiring module that ac-
quires position data of the areas of the im-
age data; and
main object determining module that de-
termines the main object using the ac-
quired position data and the results of
analysis;
wherein each of the modules of the image
processing device is executed by an inte-
grated circuit.
Id. at col. 28 ll. 33–48. This argument fails for substan-
tially the same reasons as Longitude’s argument as to
claim 32.
Like claim 32, claim 5 merely identifies a number of
components defined in functional terms that carry out
basic data collection and manipulation functions. The
claim purportedly identifies the technical improvement of
more efficiently locating the subject of an image without
actually explaining how this process is achieved other than
stating that the new data is used in identifying the main
Case: 24-1202 Document: 38 Page: 9 Filed: 04/30/2025

-- 9 of 14 --

LONGITUDE LICENSING LTD. v. GOOGLE LLC 10
object. See Hawk, 60 F.4th at 1358. We conclude that the
invention recited in claim 5 is directed to the same class of
abstract data manipulation as claim 32. See Content Ex-
traction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat.
Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
C
Longitude also argues that the district court “oversim-
plif[ied]” the claims by treating claim 32 as representative
instead of addressing each claim individually. See Appel-
lant’s Br. 59. We have already addressed claim 5 in the
preceding section. Because the other claims asserted by
Longitude were “substantially similar and linked to the
same abstract idea” claimed by claims 5 and 32, we con-
clude that the court was not required to address all sixty-
six claims in its order dismissing Longitude’s complaint.
Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 (citation omitted).
The other claims differ from claims 5 and 32 only inso-
far as they recite additional limitations on what is meant
by the “main object” and “correction conditions.” Claim 3
of the ’574 patent, for example, simply limits the “main ob-
ject” to a “human face” and limits the “correction condi-
tions” to a set of well-known parameters including “a
highlight, a shadow, brightness, color balance, or memory
color.” ’574 patent, col. 28 ll. 17–18.2 The ’056 patent’s
2 Claim 3 recites:
3. A method of image processing, the method com-
prising:
determining a main object in an image gen-
erated by an image generating apparatus,
wherein the main object includes at least a
human face, and wherein the determining
of the main object is implemented by
Case: 24-1202 Document: 38 Page: 10 Filed: 04/30/2025

-- 10 of 14 --

LONGITUDE LICENSING LTD. v. GOOGLE LLC 11
claims are directed to image correction techniques involv-
ing color balance correction. Like the ’365 patent, the
’056 patent identifies the problem in the prior art as image
correction being applied “for the overall image,” which
leads to “the risk of making an undesirable change to the
color tone of a specific [human] subject.” ’056 patent, col. 1
ll. 28–35. In place of claim 32’s main object, the claims of
the ’056 patent are directed to a “specific subject area.”3
determining whether the image includes
the human face; and
adjusting image quality of the main object
using correction conditions corresponding
to properties of the determined main ob-
ject, wherein a parameter used in adjusting
the image quality is a highlight, a shadow,
brightness, color balance, or memory color;
wherein each operation of the method of
image processing is executed by one of a
person computer, a printer, or a display de-
vice.
’574 patent col. 28 ll. 8–21.
3 Claim 10 is representative:
10. An image processing device for executing color
balance correction on image data of a photographed
image, said image processing device comprising:
an image data acquisition module that ac-
quires said image data;
a specific subject area determination mod-
ule that determines a specific subject area
in said photographed image, wherein said
specific subject area contains a specific sub-
ject in said photographed image, and
Case: 24-1202 Document: 38 Page: 11 Filed: 04/30/2025

-- 11 of 14 --

LONGITUDE LICENSING LTD. v. GOOGLE LLC 12
The claims of the ’109 patent similarly relate to locating a
human subject of the image and processing that image data
in that area, reciting the same abstract idea as claim 5 of
the ’365 patent. The claims merely replace the ’056 patent
claims’ specific subject area with using shooting scene in-
formation and location information in the image data to
wherein said specific subject area determi-
nation module determines said specific
subject area using pixel values of pixel data
included in a target area for determination,
and a position of said target area in said
photographed image;
a specific subject characteristic value calcu-
lation module that calculates a specific sub-
ject characteristic value, wherein said
specific subject characteristic value repre-
sents a characteristic of image data corre-
sponding to said determined specific
subject area;
a correction value calculation module that
calculates a correction value for color bal-
ance correction using said calculated spe-
cific subject characteristic value and color
balance a preset characteristic target
value; and
a correction execution module that exe-
cutes said color balance correction on said
image data using said calculated correction
value.
’056 patent, col. 16 ll. 32–56.
Case: 24-1202 Document: 38 Page: 12 Filed: 04/30/2025

-- 12 of 14 --

LONGITUDE LICENSING LTD. v. GOOGLE LLC 13
detect the “location information of a person,” and focus on
adjusting the sharpness of the location information.4
Ultimately, the problem for Longitude is that each
claim actually is directed to the same abstract idea of using
data to identify an image’s subject and modifying image
data based on that subject. None of the claims describes
how these results are achieved. The court was not required
to separately address these “trivial variations of the ab-
stract idea” claimed by the ’365 patent. Trinity, 72 F.4th
at 1362.
II
The district court concluded at Alice step two that the
claims lack any inventive concept. Dismissal at *1. We
4 Claim 1 is representative:
1. An image processing apparatus comprising:
a CPU, the CPU executing functions in-
cluding
acquiring an image file, the image
file including image data, shooting
scene information, and location in-
formation of a person in the image
data, and
increasing sharpness of an area in
which the person is located and de-
creasing sharpness of an area in
which the person is not located
based on the acquired location in-
formation when the acquired shoot-
ing scene information indicates a
portrait scene.
’109 patent, col. 14 l. 63–col. 2 l. 4.
Case: 24-1202 Document: 38 Page: 13 Filed: 04/30/2025

-- 13 of 14 --

LONGITUDE LICENSING LTD. v. GOOGLE LLC 14
agree and find neither of Longitude’s arguments to the con-
trary persuasive.
First, Longitude argues that the district erred by find-
ing a lack of inventive concept “without evidence or analy-
sis,” casting this inquiry as a “fact finding.” Appellant’s
Br. 41. But the absence of an inventive concept does not
necessarily entail subsidiary factual determinations, and a
patent itself may establish that the claims contain no in-
ventive concept. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360,
1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018). That is the case here: Longitude
fails to identify any relevant factual dispute, and the
claims do not recite any inventive concept.
Second, Longitude argues that “the intrinsic evidence
demonstrates that the claimed steps addressing ‘proper-
ties’ of main object image data and ‘correction conditions
corresponding to [those] properties’ recite inventive con-
cepts.” Appellant’s Br. 40–41 (alteration in original) (cita-
tion omitted). But adjusting the main object image data’s
properties according to a set of correction conditions is the
same abstract idea we identified at step one above. These
elements cannot transform “that idea into significantly
more.” Broadband, 113 F.4th at 1370; accord BSG Tech
LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir.
2018).
CONCLUSION
We have considered Longitude’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. Because the claims of the
four patents are not patent eligible under § 101, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
Case: 24-1202 Document: 38 Page: 14 Filed: 04/30/2025

-- 14 of 14 --