Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC, Fox Sports Productions, LLC

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
RECENTIVE ANALYTICS, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
FOX CORP., FOX BROADCASTING COMPANY,
LLC, FOX SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees
______________________
2023-2437
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware in No. 1:22-cv-01545-GBW, Judge
Gregory Brian Williams.
______________________
Decided: April 18, 2025
______________________
ROBERT F REDERICKSON, III, Goodwin Procter LLP,
Boston, MA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also repre-
sented by J ESSE L EMPEL ; ALEXANDRA D. VALENTI, New
York, NY.
RANJINI ACHARYA , Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued for defendants-appellees. Also
represented by MICHAEL ZELIGER; EVAN F INKEL , M ICHAEL
SHIGEYORI H ORIKAWA , Los Angeles, CA.
______________________
Case: 23-2437 Document: 51 Page: 1 Filed: 04/18/2025

-- 1 of 18 --

RECENTIVE ANALYTICS, INC. v. FOX CORP. 2
Before D YK, and P ROST , Circuit Judges, and G OLDBERG,
Chief District Judge.1
D YK, Circuit Judge.
This case presents the question of patent eligibility of
four patents directed to the use of machine learning. The
patents claim the use of machine learning for the genera-
tion of network maps and schedules for television broad-
casts and live events.
Appellant Recentive Analytics, Inc. (“Recentive”), the
owner of the patents, sued appellees Fox Corp., Fox
Broadcasting Company, LLC, and Fox Sports Produc-
tions, LLC (collectively, “Fox”) for infringement. The
district court dismissed, concluding that the patents were
directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. We affirm because the patents are directed to the
abstract idea of using a generic machine learning tech-
nique in a particular environment, with no inventive
concept.
BACKGROUND
I
Recentive is the owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,911,811
(“’811 patent”), 10,958,957 (“’957 patent”), 11,386,367
(“’367 patent”), and 11,537,960 (“’960 patent”). The pa-
tents purport to solve problems confronting the enter-
tainment industry and television broadcasters: how to
optimize the scheduling of live events and how to optimize
“network maps,” which determine the programs or con-
tent displayed by a broadcaster’s channels within certain
geographic markets at particular times. The patents fall
1 Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg, Chief District
Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
Case: 23-2437 Document: 51 Page: 2 Filed: 04/18/2025

-- 2 of 18 --

RECENTIVE ANALYTICS, INC. v. FOX CORP. 3
into two groups that the parties refer to as the “Machine
Learning Training” patents and the “Network Map”
patents.
A. The Machine Learning Training Patents
The ’367 and ’960 patents are the “Machine Learning
Training” patents. Both are titled “Systems and Methods
for Determining Event Schedules.” They share a specifi-
cation and concern the scheduling of live events. Claim 1
of the ’367 patent is representative of the Machine Learn-
ing Training patents and recites a method containing:
(i) a collecting step (receiving event parameters and
target features); (ii) an iterative training step for the
machine learning model (identifying relationships within
the data); (iii) an output step (generating an optimized
schedule); and (iv) an updating step (detecting changes to
the data inputs and iteratively generating new, further
optimized schedules).2
2 Claim 1 of the ’367 patent recites:
A computer-implemented method of dynamically generat-
ing an event schedule, the method comprising:
receiving one or more event parameters for series of
live events, wherein the one or more event parameters
comprise at least one of venue availability, venue loca-
tions, proposed ticket prices, performer fees, venue
fees, scheduled performances by one or more perform-
ers, or any combination thereof;
receiving one or more event target features associated
with the series of live events, wherein the one or more
event target features comprise at least one of event at-
tendance, event profit, event revenue, event expenses,
or any combination thereof;
providing the one or more event parameters and the
one or more target features to a machine learning
Case: 23-2437 Document: 51 Page: 3 Filed: 04/18/2025

-- 3 of 18 --

RECENTIVE ANALYTICS, INC. v. FOX CORP. 4
(ML) model, wherein the ML model is at least one of a
neural network ML model and a support vector ML
model;
iteratively training the ML model to identify relation-
ships between different event parameters and the one
or more event target features using historical data cor-
responding to one or more previous series of live
events, wherein such iterative training improves the
accuracy of the ML model;
receiving, from a user, one or more user-specific event
parameters for a future series of live events to be held
in a plurality of geographic regions;
receiving, from the user, one or more user-specific
event weights representing one or more prioritized
event target features associated with the future series
of live events;
providing the one or more user-specific event parame-
ters and the one or more user-specific event weights to
the trained ML model;
generating, via the trained ML model, a schedule for
the future series of live events that is optimized rela-
tive to the one or more prioritized event target fea-
tures;
detecting a real-time change to the one or more user-
specific event parameters;
providing the real-time change to the trained ML mod-
el to improve the accuracy of the trained ML model;
and
updating, via the trained ML model, the schedule for
the future series of live events such that the schedule
remains optimized relative to the one or more priori-
tized event target features in view of the real-time
change to the one or more user-specific event parame-
ters.
’367 patent, col. 14 ll. 2–49.
Case: 23-2437 Document: 51 Page: 4 Filed: 04/18/2025

-- 4 of 18 --

RECENTIVE ANALYTICS, INC. v. FOX CORP. 5
The specification teaches that the machine learning
model may be “trained using a set of training data,” which
can include “historical data from previous live events or
series of live events.” Id. col. 6 ll. 5–8. That historical
data may include prior event dates, venue locations, and
ticket sales. Id. col. 6 ll. 6–11. In operating the machine
learning model, users enter “target features,” which are a
user’s selected results, such as maximizing event attend-
ance, revenue, or ticket sales. Id. col. 6 ll. 12–15. The
machine learning model may “be trained to recognize how
to optimize, maximize, or minimize one or more of the
target features based on a given set of input parameters.”
Id. Eventually, the machine learning model will “gener-
ate the optimized schedule[] and provide the schedule . . .
as output.” Id. col. 6 ll. 16–17.
The specification also makes clear that the patented
method employs “any suitable machine learning tech-
nique[,] . . . such as, for example: a gradient boosted
random forest, a regression, a neural network, a decision
tree, a support vector machine, a Bayesian network, [or]
other type of technique.” Id. col. 6 ll. 1–5. The schedules
are generated “dynamically, in response to real-time
changes in data,” allowing “input parameters and target
features [to] be processed and considered more efficiently
and accurately[] compared to prior approaches.” Id. col. 9
ll. 20–25.
B. The Network Map Patents
The ’811 and ’957 patents are the Network Map pa-
tents. Both are titled “Systems and Methods for Automat-
ically and Dynamically Generating a Network Map.”
They share a specification and concern the creation of
network maps for broadcasters. Claim 1 of the
’811 patent is representative of the Network Map patents
and recites a method containing: (i) a collecting step
(receiving current broadcasting schedules); (ii) an analyz-
ing step (creating a network map); (iii) an updating step
Case: 23-2437 Document: 51 Page: 5 Filed: 04/18/2025

-- 5 of 18 --

RECENTIVE ANALYTICS, INC. v. FOX CORP. 6
(incorporating real-time changes to the data inputs); and
(iv) a using step (determining program broadcasts using
the optimized network map).3
3 Claim 1 of the ’811 patent recites:
A computer-implemented method for dynamically gener-
ating a network map, the method comprising:
receiving a schedule for a first plurality of live events
scheduled to start at a first time and a second plurality
of live events scheduled to start at a second time;
generating, based on the schedule, a network map
mapping the first plurality of live events and the sec-
ond plurality of live events to a plurality of television
stations for a plurality of cities,
wherein each station from the plurality of stations
corresponds to a respective city from the plurality
of cities,
wherein the network map identifies for each station
(i) a first live event from the first plurality of live
events that will be displayed at the first time, and
(ii) a second live event from the second plurality of
live events that will be displayed at the second
time, and
wherein generating the network map comprises us-
ing a machine learning technique to optimize an
overall television rating across the first plurality of
live events and the second plurality of live events;
automatically updating the network map on demand
and in real time based on a change to at least one of
(i) the schedule and (ii) underlying criteria;
wherein updating the network map comprises up-
dating the mapping of the first plurality of live
events and the second plurality of live events to the
plurality of television stations; and
Case: 23-2437 Document: 51 Page: 6 Filed: 04/18/2025

-- 6 of 18 --

RECENTIVE ANALYTICS, INC. v. FOX CORP. 7
The Network Map patents use training data in con-
junction with a machine learning model to generate
optimized network maps. The training data may include
“weather data, news data, and/or gambling data,” but is
not limited to such categories. Id. col. 3 ll. 26–30. In
operating the machine learning model, users may input
target features to achieve a selected result. For example,
in the context of National Football League broadcasts,
users may select a target feature that maximizes “overall
ratings for the NFL across all games, ratings for the NFL
with a particular affiliate (CBS or FOX), ratings for the
NFL in a particular market, with a particular audience,
or at a particular time.” Id. col. 3 ll. 12–15. The specifica-
tion clarifies that the disclosed method uses generic
computing equipment in conjunction with “any suitable
machine learning technique.” Id. col. 3 ll. 22–26.
II
On November 29, 2022, Recentive sued Fox, alleging
infringement of the four patents. Fox moved to dismiss
for failure to state a claim on the ground that the patents
are ineligible under § 101.
In opposing Fox’s motion, Recentive acknowledged
that “the concept of preparing network maps[] [had]
existed for a long time,” and that prior to computers,
“networks were preparing these network maps with
human beings.” Transcript of Motion to Dismiss Hearing
at 28:19–29:06, Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp.,
using the network map to determine for each station
(i) the first live event from the first plurality of live
events that will be displayed at the first time and
(ii) the second live event from the second plurality of
live events that will be displayed at the second time.
’811 patent, col. 9 ll. 66–col. 10, ll. 32.
Case: 23-2437 Document: 51 Page: 7 Filed: 04/18/2025

-- 7 of 18 --

RECENTIVE ANALYTICS, INC. v. FOX CORP. 8
692 F. Supp. 3d 438 (D. Del. 2023) (No. 22-cv-1545), ECF
No. 39 (“Transcript”). Recentive also recognized that “the
patents do not claim the machine learning technique
itself,” id. at 26:14–15, but instead “claim[] the applica-
tion of the machine learning technique to the specific
context[s]” of event scheduling and network map creation,
id. at 26:15–21.
Recentive asserted that its patents claim eligible sub-
ject matter because they involve “the unique application
of machine learning to generate customized algorithms,
based on training the machine learning model, that can
then be used to automatically create . . . event schedules
that are updated in real-time.” Plaintiff’s Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss at 2, Recentive Analytics,
Inc. v. Fox Corp., 692 F. Supp. 3d 438 (D. Del. 2023)
(No. 22-cv-1545), ECF No. 20 (“Opposition Br.”). Accord-
ing to Recentive, this includes using iterative training for
its machine learning model on “different event parame-
ters and . . . event target features” to “identify relation-
ships” within the data. Id. at 9 (alteration in original)
(quoting ’367 patent, col. 14 ll. 21–23).
Recentive acknowledged that “the way machine learn-
ing works is the inputs are defined, the model is trained[;]
and then the algorithm is actually updated and improved
over time based on the input,” Transcript at 26:21–24;
that “[t]he process of training the machine learning
model[] . . . is required for any machine learning model,”
Opposition Br. at 16; and that “‘using a machine learning
technique[]’ . . . necessarily includes [an] ‘iterative[]
training’ step,” id. at 9 (quoting ’811 patent, col. 3 ll. 26–
28). Recentive characterized its patents as introducing
“the application of machine learning models to the unso-
phisticated, and equally niche, prior art field of generat-
ing network maps for broadcasting live events and live
event schedules.” Id. at 1.
Case: 23-2437 Document: 51 Page: 8 Filed: 04/18/2025

-- 8 of 18 --

RECENTIVE ANALYTICS, INC. v. FOX CORP. 9
The district court granted Fox’s motion to dismiss,
concluding that the patents were ineligible under the two-
step inquiry of Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank Interna-
tional, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). The court first found that the
asserted claims were “directed to the abstract ideas of
producing network maps and event schedules, respective-
ly, using known generic mathematical techniques.”
Recentive, 692 F. Supp. 3d at 451. The court then found
at step two of Alice that the patents’ claims were not
directed to an “inventive concept” that would “amount[] to
significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible
concept] itself,” id. at 456 (second alteration in original)
(quoting Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18), because the machine
learning limitations were no more than “broad, function-
ally described, well-known techniques” and claimed “only
generic and conventional computing devices,” id. at 457
(footnote omitted). Finally, the district court denied
Recentive’s request for leave to amend. See id. In the
district court’s view, any amendment to Recentive’s
complaint would have been futile. Id.
Recentive appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
D ISCUSSION
We review challenges to a district court’s dismissal of
a complaint for failure to state a claim de novo. Content
Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank,
Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Sands v.
McCormick, 502 F.3d 263, 267 (3d Cir. 2007). We like-
wise review a district court’s determination of patent
eligibility under § 101 de novo. Content Extraction,
776 F.3d at 1346; Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d
1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
An invention is patent eligible if it claims a “new and
useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has inter-
preted this language to exclude “[l]aws of nature, natural
Case: 23-2437 Document: 51 Page: 9 Filed: 04/18/2025

-- 9 of 18 --

RECENTIVE ANALYTICS, INC. v. FOX CORP. 10
phenomena, and abstract ideas” from patent eligibility.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 216; Mayo Collab. Servs. v. Prometheus
Lab’ys, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012).
Under Alice, courts perform a two-step analysis to de-
termine patent eligibility under § 101. “First, we deter-
mine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of
those patent-ineligible concepts.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept,
we assess the “elements of each claim both individually
and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine whether
they possess an “inventive concept” that is “sufficient to
ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significant-
ly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.”
Id. at 217–18 (alteration in original) (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 72).
This case presents a question of first impression:
whether claims that do no more than apply established
methods of machine learning to a new data environment
are patent eligible. We hold that they are not.
I
Under the first step of the Alice inquiry, “we ‘look at
the focus of the claimed advance over the prior art to
determine if the claim’s character as a whole is directed to
excluded subject matter.’” Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.
Gemalto M2M GmbH, 942 F.3d 1143, 1149 (Fed. Cir.
2019) (quoting Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV,
LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). In the con-
text of software patents (which includes machine learning
patents), the step-one inquiry determines “whether the
claims focus on ‘the specific asserted improvement in
computer capabilities . . . or, instead, on a process that
qualifies as an abstract idea for which computers are
invoked merely as a tool.’” Id. (alteration in original)
(quoting Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d
1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
Case: 23-2437 Document: 51 Page: 10 Filed: 04/18/2025

-- 10 of 18 --

RECENTIVE ANALYTICS, INC. v. FOX CORP. 11
Considering the focus of the disputed claims, Alice,
573 U.S. at 217, it is clear that they are directed to ineli-
gible, abstract subject matter. Recentive has repeatedly
conceded that it is not claiming machine learning itself.
See Appellant’s Br. 45; Transcript at 26:14–15. Both sets
of patents rely on the use of generic machine learning
technology in carrying out the claimed methods for gener-
ating event schedules and network maps. See, e.g.,
’367 patent, col. 6 ll. 1–5, col. 11–12; ’811 patent, col. 3,
l. 23, col. 5 l. 4. The machine learning technology de-
scribed in the patents is conventional, as the patents’
specifications demonstrate. See, e.g., ’367 patent, col. 6
ll. 1–5 (requiring “any suitable machine learning technol-
ogy . . . such as, for example: a gradient boosted random
forest, a regression, a neural network, a decision tree, a
support vector machine, a Bayesian network, [or] other
type of technique”); ’811 patent, col. 3 l. 23 (requiring the
application of “any suitable machine learning tech-
nique.”).4
4 The patents additionally employ only generic
computing machines and processors. See, e.g.,
’367 patent, col. 11 ll. 50–62 (“The processes and logic
flows described in this specification can be performed by
one or more programmable processors executing one or
more computer programs to perform actions by operating
on input data and generating output . . . . Processors
suitable for the execution of a computer program include
. . . both general and special purpose microprocessors, and
any one or more processors of any kind of digital comput-
er.”); ’811 patent, col. 5 ll. 4–6 (“FIG. 4 shows an example
of a generic computing device 450, which may be used
with the techniques described in this disclosure”). As we
have explained, “generic steps of implementing and
processing calculations with a regular computer do not
Case: 23-2437 Document: 51 Page: 11 Filed: 04/18/2025

-- 11 of 18 --

RECENTIVE ANALYTICS, INC. v. FOX CORP. 12
The requirements that the machine learning model be
“iteratively trained” or dynamically adjusted in the Ma-
chine Learning Training patents do not represent a
technological improvement. Recentive’s own representa-
tions about the nature of machine learning vitiate this
argument: Iterative training using selected training
material and dynamic adjustments based on real-time
changes are incident to the very nature of machine learn-
ing. See, e.g., Opposition Br. 9 (“[U]sing a machine learn-
ing technique[] . . . necessarily includes [an] iterative[]
training step . . . .” (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted)); Transcript at 26:21–24 (“[T]he way machine
learning works is the inputs are defined, the model is
trained, and then the algorithm is actually updated and
improved over time based on the input”).
Recentive argues in its briefs that its application of
machine learning is not generic because “Recentive
worked out how to make the algorithms function dynami-
cally, so the maps and schedules are automatically cus-
tomizable and updated with real-time data,” Appellant’s
Reply Br. 2, and because “Recentive’s methods unearth
‘useful patterns’ that had previously been buried in the
data, unrecognizable to humans,” id. (internal citation
omitted). But Recentive also admits that the patents do
not claim a specific method for “improving the mathemat-
ical algorithm or making machine learning better.” Oral
Arg. at 4:40–4:44.
Even if Recentive had not conceded the lack of a tech-
nological improvement, neither the claims nor the specifi-
cations describe how such an improvement was
change the character of [the claim] from an abstract idea
into a practical application.” In re Bd. of Trs. of Leland
Stanford Junior Univ., 991 F.3d 1245, 1250 (Fed. Cir.
2021).
Case: 23-2437 Document: 51 Page: 12 Filed: 04/18/2025

-- 12 of 18 --

RECENTIVE ANALYTICS, INC. v. FOX CORP. 13
accomplished. That is, the claims do not delineate steps
through which the machine learning technology achieves
an improvement. See, e.g., IBM v. Zillow Grp., Inc., 50
F.4th 1371, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (holding abstract a
claim that “d[id] not sufficiently describe how to achieve
[its stated] results in a non-abstract way,” because “[s]uch
functional claim language, without more, is insufficient
for patentability under our law.” (quoting Two-Way Media
Ltd v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329,
1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017))); see also Intell. Ventures I LLC v.
Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (similar); Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (similar). “[T]he
patent system represents a carefully crafted bargain that
encourages both the creation and the public disclosure of
new and useful advances in technology, in return for an
exclusive monopoly for a limited period of time.” Pfaff v.
Wells Elecs., 525 U.S. 55, 63 (1998); Sanho Corp. v. Kaijet
Tech. Int’l Ltd., 108 F.4th 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2024).
Allowing a claim that functionally describes a mere
concept without disclosing how to implement that concept
risks defeating the very purpose of the patent system. In
this respect, the patents’ claims are materially different
from those in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Ameri-
ca Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and Koninklijke,
the cases on which Recentive relies.
Instead of disclosing “a specific implementation of a
solution to a problem in the software arts,” Enfish, LLC v.
Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016), or
“a specific means or method that solves a problem in an
existing technological process,” Koninklijke, 942 F.3d
at 1150, the only thing the claims disclose about the use
of machine learning is that machine learning is used in a
new environment. This new environment is event sched-
uling and the creation of network maps.
As Recentive acknowledges, before the introduction of
machine learning, event planners looked to what the
Case: 23-2437 Document: 51 Page: 13 Filed: 04/18/2025

-- 13 of 18 --

RECENTIVE ANALYTICS, INC. v. FOX CORP. 14
Machine Learning Training patents describe as “event
parameters” such as prior ticket sales, weather forecasts,
and other data to determine when and where to schedule
a particular event or series of events. See Appellant’s
Br. 4 (describing prior methods as “entirely manual,
static[,] and incapable of responding to changing condi-
tions” (quoting ’811 patent, col. 1 l. 25)). The patents
recognize this. See, e.g., ’367 patent, col. 1 ll. 13–26. The
same goes for the creation of network maps, which have
been “manual[ly]” created by humans to determine “which
content will be displayed on which channel at a certain
time.” ’811 patent, col. 1 ll. 16–17, 25.
We see no merit to Recentive’s argument that its pa-
tents are eligible because they apply machine learning to
this new field of use. We have long recognized that “[a]n
abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the
invention to a particular field of use or technological
environment.” Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank
(USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also
Alice, 573 U.S. at 222; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 593
(1978); Stanford, 989 F.3d at 1373 (rejecting argument
that a claim was not abstract where patentee contended
“the specific application of the steps [was] novel and
enable[d] scientists to ascertain more haplotype infor-
mation than was previously possible”).
We have also held the application of existing technol-
ogy to a novel database does not create patent eligibility.
See, e.g., SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161,
1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1353
(“[W]e have treated collecting information, including
when limited to particular content (which does not change
its character as information), as within the realm of
abstract ideas.” (citing Internet Pats. Corp. v. Active
Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP
Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363
(Fed. Cir. 2015); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347;
Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc.,
Case: 23-2437 Document: 51 Page: 14 Filed: 04/18/2025

-- 14 of 18 --

RECENTIVE ANALYTICS, INC. v. FOX CORP. 15
758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); CyberSource Corp.
v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir.
2011))). Stated differently, patents may be directed to
abstract ideas where they disclose the use of an “already
available [technology], with [its] already available basic
functions, to use as [a] tool[] in executing the claimed
process.” SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1169–70. We think those
cases are equally applicable in the machine learning
context. Recentive’s argument that its patents are eligi-
ble simply because they introduce machine learning
techniques to the fields of event planning and creating
network maps directly conflicts with our § 101 jurispru-
dence.
Finally, the claimed methods are not rendered patent
eligible by the fact that (using existing machine learning
technology) they perform a task previously undertaken by
humans with greater speed and efficiency than could
previously be achieved. We have consistently held, in the
context of computer-assisted methods, that such claims
are not made patent eligible under § 101 simply because
they speed up human activity. See, e.g., Content Extrac-
tion, 776 F.3d at 1347; DealerTrack, 674 F.3d at 1333.
Whether the issue is raised at step one or step two, the
increased speed and efficiency resulting from use of
computers (with no improved computer techniques) do not
themselves create eligibility. See, e.g., Trinity Info Media,
LLC v. Covalent, Inc., 72 F.4th 1355, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2023)
(rejecting argument that “humans could not mentally
engage in the ‘same claimed process’ because they could
not perform ‘nanosecond comparisons’ and aggregate
‘result values with huge numbers of polls and members’”)
(internal citation omitted); Customedia Techs., LLC v.
Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
(holding claims abstract where “[t]he only improvements
identified in the specification are generic speed and
efficiency improvements inherent in applying the use of a
computer to any task”); compare McRo, 837 F.3d at 1314–
Case: 23-2437 Document: 51 Page: 15 Filed: 04/18/2025

-- 15 of 18 --

RECENTIVE ANALYTICS, INC. v. FOX CORP. 16
16 (finding eligibility of claims to use specific computer
techniques different from those humans use on their own
to produce natural-seeming lip motion for speech).
The district court correctly concluded that the Ma-
chine Learning Training and Network Map patents are
directed to abstract ideas at step one of Alice.
II
At Alice step two, we “consider the elements of [the]
claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to
determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the
nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.”
573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79). Trans-
forming the nature of a claim “into a patent-eligible
application requires more than simply stating the ab-
stract idea while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Trinity,
72 F.4th at 1365 (quoting Alice, 573 U.S. at 221); see also
SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1167. “[T]he claim must include ‘an
inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed
abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.’” Trinity,
72 F.4th at 1365 (quoting Alice, 573 U.S. at 221); Broad-
band iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.Com, Inc., 113 F.4th 1359, 1370
(Fed. Cir. 2024) (“[W]e must determine whether the
claims include ‘an element or combination of elements’
that transforms the claims into something ‘significantly
more’ than a claim on the patent-ineligible concept itself.”
(quoting Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18)).
Recentive claims that the inventive concept in its pa-
tents is “using machine learning to dynamically generate
optimized maps and schedules based on real-time data
and update them based on changing conditions.” Appel-
lant’s Br. 44. As the district court correctly recognized,
see Recentive, 692 F. Supp. 3d at 456, this is no more than
claiming the abstract idea itself. Such a position plainly
fails to identify anything in the claims that would “‘trans-
form’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible
Case: 23-2437 Document: 51 Page: 16 Filed: 04/18/2025

-- 16 of 18 --

RECENTIVE ANALYTICS, INC. v. FOX CORP. 17
application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quoting Mayo, 566
U.S. at 71).
In short, we perceive nothing in the claims, whether
considered individually or in their ordered combination,
that would transform the Machine Learning Training and
Network Map patents into something “significantly more”
than the abstract idea of generating event schedules and
network maps through the application of machine learn-
ing. See SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1169–70; Broadband iTV,
113 F.4th at 1372. Recentive has also failed to identify
any allegation in its complaint that would suffice to
plausibly allege an inventive concept to defeat Fox’s
motion to dismiss. Trinity, 72 F.4th at 1365.
The district court did not err in concluding that Re-
centive’s claims fail to satisfy step two of the Alice in-
quiry.
III
We additionally reject Recentive’s argument that the
district court should have granted it leave to amend, a
determination that is committed to the sound discretion of
the district court. See Celgene Corp. v. Mylan Pharms.,
Inc., 17 F.4th 1111, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 2021); In re Allergan
ERISA Litig., 975 F.3d 348, 356 n.13 (3d Cir. 2020).
Here, the court determined further amendment would be
futile. See Recentive, 692 F. Supp. 3d at 457. Recentive
failed to propose any amendments or identify any factual
issues that would alter the § 101 analysis. In light of this
failure and our holding with respect to the ineligibility of
Recentive’s patents, we discern no error in the district
court’s conclusion.5
5 Recentive additionally suggests that the district
court erred by resolving claim-construction disputes at
Case: 23-2437 Document: 51 Page: 17 Filed: 04/18/2025

-- 17 of 18 --

RECENTIVE ANALYTICS, INC. v. FOX CORP. 18
CONCLUSION
Machine learning is a burgeoning and increasingly
important field and may lead to patent-eligible improve-
ments in technology. Today, we hold only that patents
that do no more than claim the application of generic
machine learning to new data environments, without
disclosing improvements to the machine learning models
to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101.
AFFIRMED
the pleading stage. We are not convinced. The district
court correctly recognized that “[d]ismissal is appropriate”
where, as here, “a plaintiff has failed to identify claim
terms requiring a construction that could affect the pa-
tent-ineligibility analysis.” Recentive, 692 F. Supp. 3d
at 448; Trinity, 72 F.4th at 1360–61 (“[A] patentee must
propose a specific claim construction or identify specific
facts that need development and explain why those cir-
cumstances must be resolved before the scope of the
claims can be understood for § 101 purposes.”).
Case: 23-2437 Document: 51 Page: 18 Filed: 04/18/2025

-- 18 of 18 --