Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd. v. Google LLC, Apple Inc.

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
GOOGLE LLC, APPLE INC.,
Defendants-Appellees
______________________
2024-1003, 2024-1018
______________________
Appeals from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia in Nos. 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-
JFA, 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA, Judge Michael S.
Nachmanoff.
______________________
Decided: May 2, 2025
______________________
T IMOTHY G ILMAN, Schulte Roth & Zabel, LLP, New
York, NY, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented
by CHRISTOPHER G ERSON.
BRIAN ROSENTHAL , Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
New York, NY, argued for all defendants-appellees. De-
fendant-appellee Apple Inc. also represented by VIVIAN L U;
BRIAN M. B UROKER, Washington, DC; J AYSEN CHUNG, San
Francisco, CA; BLAINE H. EVANSON, N ATHANIEL RYAN
Case: 24-1003 Document: 54 Page: 1 Filed: 05/02/2025

-- 1 of 14 --

GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD. v. GOOGLE LLC 2
SCHARN, Irvine, CA; JULIA G. T ABAT , Dallas, TX.
ADAM HARBER , Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington,
DC, for defendant-appellee Google LLC. Also represented
by D EBMALLO SHAYON G HOSH , XUN L IU, ADAM P AN,
ANDREW V. T RASK.
______________________
Before H UGHES , MAYER , and STOLL , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd. (“Geoscope”) appeals
final judgments of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia holding that several claims of
its asserted patents were directed to patent ineligible sub-
ject matter. See Geoscope Techs. Pte. Ltd. v. Google LLC,
692 F. Supp. 3d 566 (E.D. Va. 2023) (“Google Decision”);
Geoscope Techs. Pte. Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 1:22-cv-01373-
MSN-JFA, 2023 WL 6120604 (E.D. Va. Sept. 18, 2023)
(“Apple Decision”). For the reasons discussed below, we af-
firm.
I. BACKGROUND
Geoscope owns patents related to determining the lo-
cation of mobile devices. At issue in this appeal are claims
1 and 32 of U.S. Patent No. 8,406,753 (the “’753 patent”),
claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 7,561,104 (the “’104 patent”),
claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 8,400,358 (the “’358 patent”),
and claims 4 and 26 of U.S. Patent No. 8,786,494 (the “’494
patent”) (collectively, the “asserted claims”).1
Claim 1 of the ’753 patent recites:
1 The ’104, ’358, and ’494 patents share substantially
identical specifications and are referred to collectively as
the “’104 patent family.”
Case: 24-1003 Document: 54 Page: 2 Filed: 05/02/2025

-- 2 of 14 --

GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD. v. GOOGLE LLC 3
1. A method of determining the location of a mo-
bile device in a geographic region comprising the
steps of:
(a) providing calibration data for each of one or
more calibration points in a geographic region, said
calibration data having one or more characterizing
parameters;
(b) generating one or more sets of grid points for
said calibration data;
(c) receiving at least one network measurement re-
port from a mobile device at an unknown location
in said geographic region;
(d) evaluating said at least one network measure-
ment report with each of said sets of grid points as
a function of select ones of said characterizing pa-
rameters;
(e) selecting a set of grid points as a function of a
predetermined criteria; and
(f) determining the location of a mobile device in
said geographic region as a function of said selected
set of grid points.
’753 patent, col. 59 ll. 14–31.
Claims 1 and 2 of the ’104 patent recite:
1. A method for determining a location of a mobile
station, comprising:
providing a database of previously-gathered cali-
bration data for a predetermined region in a wire-
less network, wherein said network includes a first
transmitter and a second transmitter;
collecting observed network measurement data in-
cluding a first signal characteristic from said first
Case: 24-1003 Document: 54 Page: 3 Filed: 05/02/2025

-- 3 of 14 --

GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD. v. GOOGLE LLC 4
transmitter and a second signal characteristic from
said second transmitter;
determining which of said first and second signal
characteristics has a greater magnitude;
modifying said observed network measurement
data using the greater magnitude signal character-
istic; and
comparing said modified network measurement
data with said database of calibration data to
thereby determine the location of the mobile sta-
tion.
2. The method of claim 1 wherein said database
comprises previously-gathered calibration data for
one or more non-uniform grid points within said re-
gion.
’104 patent, col. 11 l. 66–col. 12 l. 18.
Geoscope brought separate infringement actions
against Apple Inc. (“Apple”) and Google LLC (“Google”) in
2022. In July 2023, the district court issued a claim con-
struction order—applicable to both actions—which con-
strued the term “grid point” to mean “a point associated
with representative calibration data for an area,” J.A.
2752, and the term “calibration data” to mean “modified or
unmodified network measurement data associated with a
geographic location,” J.A. 2740.
On September 18, 2023, the court granted the motions
filed by Google and Apple for judgment on the pleadings,
concluding that the asserted claims were patent ineligible
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.2 Applying the two-step framework
2 Geoscope’s original complaints included allega-
tions of infringement of claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,320,264
and U.S. Patent No. 9,097,784. Only the ’753 patent and
Case: 24-1003 Document: 54 Page: 4 Filed: 05/02/2025

-- 4 of 14 --

GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD. v. GOOGLE LLC 5
set out in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S.
208, 218–26 (2014), the court held that the asserted claims
of the ’753 patent were “directed to the abstract idea of de-
termining an unknown location by comparing information
about known locations organized in a database against
measurements from a mobile device,” Google Decision, 692
F. Supp. 3d at 581, and failed to disclose “a new source or
type of information, or new techniques for analyzing it,” id.
at 583 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).3
The court likewise determined that the asserted claims
of the ’104 patent family were patent ineligible. In the
court’s view, these claims were all “linked to the same ab-
stract idea of data collection, modification, and analysis,”
id. at 575 (internal quotation marks omitted), and there
were no “claim elements that amount[ed] to significantly
more than the abstract idea of determining location based
on data,” id. at 580 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Geoscope then appealed to this court.4 We have juris-
diction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
II. D ISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
This court reviews a district court’s decision to grant
judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(c) under the law of the appropriate re-
gional circuit. Nat. Alternatives Int’l, Inc. v. Creative
the ’104 patent family are at issue in this appeal. See J.A.
2937–41, 2942–47.
3 Because the Google Decision and the Apple Deci-
sion are substantively similar, we cite only to the Google
Decision.
4 Geoscope separately appealed the Google Decision
and the Apple Decision, but this court consolidated those
appeals. See ECF No. 11.
Case: 24-1003 Document: 54 Page: 5 Filed: 05/02/2025

-- 5 of 14 --

GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD. v. GOOGLE LLC 6
Compounds, LLC, 918 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2019);
Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288,
1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In the Fourth Circuit, a grant of
judgment on the pleadings is reviewed without deference.
See, e.g., Burbach Broad. Co. v. Elkins Radio Corp., 278
F.3d 401, 405–06 (4th Cir. 2002).
B. The ’753 Patent
The ’753 patent describes a method and system for “de-
termining the location of a mobile device in a geographic
region.” ’753 patent, col. 5 ll. 58–59, col. 6 ll. 9–10. The
specification explains that the claimed method requires
collecting “calibration data for a number of locations within
a geographic region” and “analyz[ing]” that data to associ-
ate it with “particular points (e.g., ‘grid points’) within the
geographic region.” Id. col. 2 ll. 30–33. A mobile device
then obtains network signal measurements that “may be
compared with the data associated with the various grid
points to estimate the location of the mobile device.” Id.
col. 2 ll. 37–39. According to the specification, the claimed
“grid points do not necessarily have to be part of a uniform
grid and usually will not be uniformly distributed through-
out the geographic region.” Id. col. 2 ll. 43–46.
At Alice step one, a court must consider the claims “in
their entirety to ascertain whether their character as a
whole is directed to excluded subject matter.” Internet
Pats. Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346
(Fed. Cir. 2015). The asserted claims of the ’753 patent are
directed to determining the location of a mobile device by
collecting data about known locations (such as information
about the properties of signals transmitted by different cell
towers), organizing that data in a database, and then com-
paring that data to measurements from the mobile device.
See ’753 patent, col. 59 ll. 14–31, col. 63 ll. 49–67; see also
J.A. 267–68, 274–78. These claims, as the district court
correctly determined, fail Alice step one because they
simply require collecting, comparing, and reporting data
Case: 24-1003 Document: 54 Page: 6 Filed: 05/02/2025

-- 6 of 14 --

GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD. v. GOOGLE LLC 7
using conventional components. See Google Decision, 692
F. Supp. 3d at 581–83. As we have repeatedly emphasized,
claims directed to “collecting information, analyzing it, and
displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,”
without more, are impermissibly abstract. Elec. Power
Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir.
2016); see also In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir.
2022) (concluding that claims “directed to collection of in-
formation, comprehending the meaning of that collected in-
formation, and indication of the results, all on a generic
computer network operating in its normal, expected man-
ner” were abstract); Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One Fin.
Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (concluding
that claims related to a system which allowed users to dy-
namically view and update documents in different formats
were abstract because they were broadly directed to the
“concept of collecting, displaying, and manipulating data of
particular documents”).
The fact that the asserted claims of the ’753 patent re-
late to a particular type of information—data about loca-
tion—does not remove them from the realm of the abstract.
See, e.g., Sanderling Mgmt. Ltd. v. Snap Inc., 65 F.4th 698,
701 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (concluding that claims directed to
providing a processing function based on “receiving . . . a
Global Positioning System (GPS) location indication from
each of a plurality of mobile devices” and “matching . . .
each said GPS location indication with [a specific] geo-
graphic location” in a database were patent ineligible (cita-
tion and internal quotation marks omitted)); Int’l Bus.
Machs. Corp. v. Zillow Grp., Inc., 50 F.4th 1371, 1375 (Fed.
Cir. 2022) (concluding that claims describing “coordinated
geospatial and list-based mapping” were patent ineligible
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). To the
contrary, “even if a process of collecting and analyzing in-
formation is limited to particular content or a particular
source, that limitation does not make the collection and
analysis other than abstract.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic,
Case: 24-1003 Document: 54 Page: 7 Filed: 05/02/2025

-- 7 of 14 --

GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD. v. GOOGLE LLC 8
LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citation and in-
ternal quotation marks omitted); see also Elec. Power, 830
F.3d at 1353 (explaining that because “[i]nformation as
such is an intangible,” this court has “treated collecting in-
formation, including when limited to particular content
(which does not change its character as information), as
within the realm of abstract ideas”).
We reject, moreover, Geoscope’s contention that the as-
serted claims of the ’753 patent contain an inventive con-
cept sufficient to save them from patent ineligibility. See
Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (explaining that at step two a court
“must examine the elements of the claim to determine
whether it contains an inventive concept sufficient to
transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible
application” of that idea (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)). According to Geoscope, its claims contain
an inventive concept because they provide “concrete tech-
nological benefits.” Appellant’s Br. 4. Specifically, it as-
serts that “the claimed grid points are not just points on a
conventional grid,” id. at 40, but are instead “defined based
on analysis of the similarity of the calibration data from
which they are generated,” id. at 41, and therefore “do not
necessarily have to be part of a uniform grid and usually
will not be uniformly distributed throughout the geo-
graphic region,” id. (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted). It contends, moreover, that by creating “grid
points [which are] generated dynamically from the meas-
ured calibration data,” its system “help[s] to fill in the ‘map’
between cell towers, so that geolocation [will] be faster, re-
quire fewer resources, and be more accurate.” Id. at 4.
The fundamental flaw in this argument is that Geo-
scope points to nothing in the language of the asserted
claims of the ’753 patent that offers a specific and concrete
advance in geolocation technology. See AI Visualize, Inc. v.
Nuance Commc’ns, Inc., 97 F.4th 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir.
2024) (concluding that claims which did not “involve un-
conventional technology or a concrete application of the
Case: 24-1003 Document: 54 Page: 8 Filed: 05/02/2025

-- 8 of 14 --

GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD. v. GOOGLE LLC 9
[underlying] abstract idea” were patent ineligible). As the
specification of the ’753 patent acknowledges, various tech-
niques for determining the location of a mobile device were
available at the time of the claimed invention. ’753 patent,
col. 1 ll. 46–47 (“Currently in the art, there are a number
of different ways to geolocate a mobile device.”). The spec-
ification further acknowledges that techniques for deter-
mining the location of a mobile device using signals from
known locations were available. See id. col. 1 ll. 47–65.
The asserted claims of the ’753 patent do not invoke the
use of existing technology in any unconventional manner,
but instead describe—in broad, results-focused terms—
comparing measurement data from a mobile device at an
unknown location to a reference database containing meas-
urement data from known locations. As we have previously
made clear, however, “a claim that merely describes an ef-
fect or result dissociated from any method by which [it] is
accomplished is not directed to patent-eligible subject mat-
ter.” Apple Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (alteration in original) (citation and inter-
nal quotation marks omitted). While the asserted claims
of the ’753 patent describe the concepts of collecting, organ-
izing, and analyzing data to determine location, they are
bereft of any specific guidelines on how to perform the basic
functions they recite. See Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast
Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(explaining that to meet section 101 claims cannot simply
recite “generic functional language to achieve . . . pur-
ported solutions”).
For example, while claim 1 requires “providing calibra-
tion data” which has “one or more characterizing parame-
ters,” ’753 patent, col. 59 ll. 16–18, it fails to delineate what
those parameters are.5 See Hawk Tech. Sys., LLC v. Castle
5 The specification of the ’753 patent provides a laun-
dry list of “exemplary characterizing parameter[s],” ’753
Case: 24-1003 Document: 54 Page: 9 Filed: 05/02/2025

-- 9 of 14 --

GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD. v. GOOGLE LLC 10
Retail, LLC, 60 F.4th 1349, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (conclud-
ing that claims which recited the use of parameters but
“fail[ed] to specify precisely what the parameters [were]”
were patent ineligible). Likewise, while claim 1 requires
“selecting a set of grid points as a function of . . . predeter-
mined criteria,” ’753 patent, col. 59 ll. 27–28, it does not
provide guidelines regarding which predetermined criteria
should be used.6
Importantly, moreover, the asserted claims of the ’753
patent do not explain how the claimed grid points are gen-
erated from calibration data, much less suggest that any
new technology is used during this generation process. “Ul-
timately, [t]he [section] 101 inquiry must focus on the lan-
guage of the Asserted Claims themselves, and the
specification cannot be used to import details from the
specification if those details are not claimed.” ChargePoint,
Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 769 (Fed. Cir.
2019) (first alteration in the original) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). Because there is nothing in the
claim language requiring any specific method of transform-
ing calibration data into grid points or describing how such
grid points are structured, we reject Geoscope’s assertion
that the claimed grid points are “novel, unconventional
patent, col. 51 ll. 42–43, such as the “signal strength for a
signal transmitted by a transmitter having a known loca-
tion as received by a receiver at the grid point,” id. col. 51
ll. 45–47. It states, however, that the claimed method is
“not limited to” the listed exemplary parameters. Id. col.
51 l. 45. Notably, moreover, the specification does not sug-
gest that unconventional measurement techniques are re-
quired to use any of the listed parameters.
6 The specification provides a list of “[e]xemplary
predetermined criteria,” such as “total probability,” id. col.
51 ll. 31–32, but does not limit the claimed method to such
criteria, id. col. 51 l. 32.
Case: 24-1003 Document: 54 Page: 10 Filed: 05/02/2025

-- 10 of 14 --

GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD. v. GOOGLE LLC 11
data structures,” Appellant’s Br. 45, which represent a spe-
cific technical improvement to geolocation.
On appeal, Geoscope argues that the district court com-
mitted reversible error by “ignoring its adopted claim con-
structions,” id. at 34, when conducting its eligibility
analysis. We disagree. The court’s claim constructions—
including its determination that the term “grid point”
means “a point associated with representative calibration
data for an area,” J.A. 2752—are fully consistent with its
conclusion that the asserted claims of the ’753 patent are
patent-ineligible because they “do not focus on a specific
means or method that would improve the relevant technol-
ogy,” but are instead “drafted at [such] a high level of gen-
erality that they are themselves directed at abstract
concepts,” Google Decision, 692 F. Supp. 3d at 582.
In this regard, we are unpersuaded by Geoscope’s as-
sertion that its claimed grid points are inventive because,
unlike conventional grid points, they are “generated dy-
namically based on [the] analysis of gathered calibration
data.” Appellant’s Br. 37. Merely generating one form of
information—grid points—from another type of infor-
mation—calibration data—is insufficient to confer patent
eligibility. See Hawk Tech., 60 F.4th at 1357 (concluding
that claims which required “converting information from
one format to another” did not satisfy section 101). Like-
wise, regardless of whether the claimed grid points are ar-
ranged in a non-uniform pattern, it does not change the
fact that they are simply points associated with a particu-
lar form of data. See SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1169–70; Elec.
Power, 830 F.3d at 1353–54.
In sum, while the asserted claims of the ’753 patent de-
scribe comparing measurements taken from a mobile de-
vice at an unknown location against a database containing
measurements from known locations, they are not directed
to any specific improvement in computer technology or sig-
nal transmission and measurement functionality. Instead,
Case: 24-1003 Document: 54 Page: 11 Filed: 05/02/2025

-- 11 of 14 --

GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD. v. GOOGLE LLC 12
they rely on existing technology as a tool to measure and
compare data from known and unknown locations. See
Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., 957 F.3d 1303,
1306 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (explaining that the eligibility “in-
quiry often turns on whether the claims focus on specific
asserted improvements in computer capabilities or instead
on a process or system that qualifies [as] an abstract idea
for which computers are invoked merely as a tool”). Thus,
whether we view the claim elements of the asserted claims
of the ’753 patent individually or as an ordered combina-
tion, they do not contain an inventive concept sufficient to
confer patent eligibility.
C. The ’104 Patent Family
We likewise conclude that the asserted claims7 of the
’104 patent family fail to satisfy the demands of section
101.8 These claims require determining the location of a
“mobile station,” ’494 patent, col. 12 l. 11, such as a cell
phone, by: (1) providing a database of previously-collected
calibration data; (2) collecting observed network measure-
ment data; (3) modifying that data; and (4) comparing this
modified data with the database. See id. col. 12 ll. 10–22,
ll. 31–33, col. 14 ll. 24–26; see also ’104 patent, col. 11 l. 66–
col. 12 l. 18; ’358 patent, col. 13 ll. 7–18, ll. 27–29. Because
the asserted claims of the ’104 patent family, like those of
the ’753 patent, “at most recite abstract data
7 Although Geoscope originally asserted infringe-
ment of claim 52 of the ’358 patent, the parties, in light of
the district court’s claim construction order, stipulated to
invalidity of that claim. See J.A. 2939, 2944.
8 The district court determined that claim 1 of the
’494 patent was not representative of all asserted claims of
the ’104 patent family. Google Decision, 692 F. Supp. 3d at
574–75. Accordingly, it “address[ed] the distinguishing
characteristics of” the various asserted claims of the ’104
patent family individually. Id. at 575.
Case: 24-1003 Document: 54 Page: 12 Filed: 05/02/2025

-- 12 of 14 --

GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD. v. GOOGLE LLC 13
manipulation,” Hawk Tech., 60 F.4th at 1358, they fail to
pass muster under Alice step one.
On appeal, Geoscope argues that the asserted claims of
the ’104 patent family “address a particular problem in ge-
olocation involving disparities between calibration data
and observed data caused by varying conditions and other
operational variables affecting how signals propagate in
different environments, resulting in poor estimated loca-
tion accuracy.” Appellant’s Br. 57 (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted). It further asserts that “the dif-
ferences in signal propagation outdoors versus indoors can
make it difficult to perform an appropriate comparison of
calibration data to observed data for geolocation.” Id. Ac-
cording to Geoscope, the “modifying” step of the asserted
claims of the ’104 patent family supplies an inventive con-
cept because it eliminates disparities between data col-
lected outdoors and data collected indoors and thus
“prevent[s] an ‘apples and oranges’ comparison between
the two.” Id. at 58.
This argument falls flat. The asserted claims of the
’104 patent family are not limited to “eliminating dispari-
ties” between outdoor and indoor data. Indeed, the words
“outdoor” and “indoor” are not recited in the claims. Fur-
thermore, while the claims recite “modifying” observed net-
work measurement data before using that modified data to
determine location, ’494 patent, col. 12 l. 19, they do not
specify precisely how such modifications should occur or re-
cite any new technology for performing such modifications.
See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1356 (explaining that “the es-
sentially result-focused, functional character of claim lan-
guage has been a frequent feature of claims held ineligible
under [section] 101”).
Claim 18 of the ’358 patent invokes the use of “cir-
cuitry” to carry out the functions of collecting, modifying,
and comparing data. ’358 patent, col. 13 ll. 12, 14, 16; see
also id. col. 13 ll. 27–29. Reciting the use of conventional
Case: 24-1003 Document: 54 Page: 13 Filed: 05/02/2025

-- 13 of 14 --

GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD. v. GOOGLE LLC 14
components which function in their expected manner, how-
ever, is insufficient to satisfy section 101. See, e.g., BSG
Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290–91
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (“If a claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is the
application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-
understood techniques, the claim has not been transformed
into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.”).
Likewise, while claim 2 of the ’104 patent and claim 26 of
the ’494 patent require routine mathematical calculations,
see ’104 patent, col. 12 ll. 9–12; ’494 patent, col. 14 ll. 17–
18, the use of such calculations fails to supply an inventive
concept. See In re Bd. of Trs. of Leland Stanford Junior
Univ., 991 F.3d 1245, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (explaining that
“[c]ourts have long held that mathematical algorithms for
performing calculations, without more, are patent ineligi-
ble under [section] 101”); see also SAP Am., 898 F.3d at
1168 (concluding that claims were patent ineligible where
their “focus” was “not a physical-realm improvement but
an improvement in wholly abstract ideas—the selection
and mathematical analysis of information, followed by re-
porting or display of the results”). We have considered Ge-
oscope’s remaining arguments but do not find them
persuasive.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the judgments of the United States Dis-
trict Court for the Eastern District of Virginia are affirmed.
AFFIRMED
Case: 24-1003 Document: 54 Page: 14 Filed: 05/02/2025

-- 14 of 14 --