Nantworks LLC v. Niantic Inc. - Patent Invalidity Affirmed (AR Technology)

Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 23, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Nantworks, LLC v. Niantic, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 24-2216

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (19)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (35.8K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Case: 24-2216 Document: 45 Page: 1 Filed: 04/23/2026

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit

---

NANTWORKS, LLC, NANT HOLDINGS IP, LLC,
Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

NIANTIC, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee

---

2024-2216

---

Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California in No. 3:20-cv-06262-LB,
Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler.

---

Decided: April 23, 2026

---

MATTHEW K. BLACKBURN, Womble Bond Dickinson
(US) LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for plaintiffs-appel-
lants. Also represented by EVAN BOETTICHER, Sunnyvale,
CA.

HEIDI LYN KEEFE, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued
for defendant-appellee. Also represented by DENA CHEN,
ALEXANDRA MARIE LEEPER; PATRICK WARREN LAUPPE,
Washington, DC.

---

Case: 24-2216 Document: 45 Page: 2 Filed: 04/23/2026

2 NANTWORKS, LLC v. NIANTIC, INC.

Before REYNA, SCHALL, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.
CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judge.
NantWorks, LLC and Nant Holdings IP, LLC (collec-
tively, “NantWorks”) appeal decisions from the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Califor-
nia. The district court1 granted Niantic, Inc.’s (“Niantic”)
motion for judgment on the pleadings that claims 7, 14, 16,
19, 26, and 31 of U.S. Patent No. 10,664,518 are invalid un-
der 35 U.S.C. § 101. NantWorks, LLC v. Niantic, Inc.,
No. 20-CV-06262-LB, 2023 WL 187490, at *1, *3–8
(N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2023) (“’518 Decision”). The district
court also granted Niantic’s motion for summary judgment
that claims 7, 22, 23, and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 10,403,051
are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. NantWorks, LLC
v. Niantic, Inc., No. 20-CV-06262-LB, 2024 WL 3363568,
at *1–7 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2024) (“’051 Decision”). For the
following reasons, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
On February 23, 2021, NantWorks filed the operative
Third Amended Complaint, accusing Niantic of infringing
at least claim 1 of the ’518 and ’051 patents through use of
its augmented-reality (“AR”) games Pokémon Go and Harry
Potter: Wizards Unite. J.A. 1545, 1553–54; ’518 Decision
at *1; ’051 Decision at *1; see J.A. 1525–62.
Each of the patents pertain to augmented-reality (AR)
devices or systems, where the ’518 patent relates to map-
ping AR objects and rendering them on a device display,
’518 patent claim 1, and the ’051 patent relates to incorpo-
rating visual objects into a digital representation of an en-
vironment surrounding an AR device, ’051 patent claim 1.

1 Magistrate Judge Beeler, sitting by consent.
J.A. 1076–77.
Case: 24-2216 Document: 45 Page: 3 Filed: 04/23/2026

NANTWORKS, LLC v. NIANTIC, INC. 3

The parties agree that claim 7 is representative of the
asserted claims of the ’518 patent for purposes of this ap-
peal. Appellee’s Br. 5–6; Oral Arg. 00:58–01:06,
https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/24-2216_02
032026.mp3. Claim 7 of the ’518 patent depends from
claim 1, which recites:
1. A device capable of rendering augmented reality
(AR), the device comprising:
at least one sensor, including a location
sensor;
a display;
a non-transitory computer readable
memory storing software instructions; and
at least one processor coupled with the non-
transitory computer readable memory, the
at least one sensor, and the display; and,
upon execution of the software instruc-
tions, is configurable to:
obtain sensor data from the at least
one sensor wherein the sensor data
includes a device location obtained
from the location sensor;
obtain an area of interest via an
area database based on at least the
device location within the sensor
data;
access an area tile map of the area
of interest, the area tile map repre-
sented by a set of tile subareas that
includes one or more tessellated
tiles from a tessellated tile map;
identify a tile subarea from the set
of tile subareas based at least in
Case: 24-2216 Document: 45 Page: 4 Filed: 04/23/2026

4 NANTWORKS, LLC v. NIANTIC, INC.

part on the device location relative
to one or more locations of tile sub-
areas from the set of tile subareas,
wherein the identified tile subarea
covers at least a portion of the area
of interest, and wherein one or
more tessellated tiles within the
identified tile subarea are associ-
ated with one or more AR content
objects;
populate the non-transitory com-
puter readable memory with at
least one of the one or more AR con-
tent objects associated with the one
or more tessellated tiles corre-
sponding with the identified tile
subarea; and
render the at least one of the one or
more AR content objects that is as-
sociated with the identified tile
subarea on the display based on a
view of interest.
’518 patent claim 1. Claim 7 recites:
7. The device of claim 1, wherein the at least one
of the one or more AR content objects is rendered
on the display as an overlay of an image related to
the real-world.
’518 patent claim 7.
At the district court Niantic argued, and NantWorks
did not dispute, that claim 1 was representative of the as-
serted claims of the ’051 patent. ’051 Decision at *4 & n.12.
Claim 1 recites:
1. An augmented reality (AR) platform system
comprising:
Case: 24-2216 Document: 45 Page: 5 Filed: 04/23/2026

NANTWORKS, LLC v. NIANTIC, INC. 5

an AR object repository storing available
AR objects in a first non-transitory com-
puter readable memory; and
an AR server coupled with the AR object re-
pository and, upon execution of software in-
structions stored in a second non-
transitory computer readable memory by a
processor, is configured to:
obtain digital data representative
of an environment of an AR capable
mobile device, the digital data in-
cluding a device location of the AR
capable device and a virtual ele-
ment attribute;
determine at least one context re-
lated to the AR capable device and
pertinent to the environment based
at least on the device location;
identify relevant AR objects from
the AR object repository represent-
ing available AR objects corre-
sponding to the at least one
context;
determine whether to alter pres-
ence of a relevant AR object based
on at least the device location and
the virtual element attribute; and
cause the AR capable device to ren-
der the relevant AR object accord-
ing to its altered presence.
’051 patent claim 1.
After a Markman hearing, the district court issued a
claim construction order construing several claims of each
patent. See J.A. 5894–924. In this appeal, NantWorks
Case: 24-2216 Document: 45 Page: 6 Filed: 04/23/2026

6 NANTWORKS, LLC v. NIANTIC, INC.

does not challenge any aspect of the district court’s claim
construction ruling. See, e.g., Appellants’ Br. 2; see gener-
ally id.
Niantic moved for judgment on the pleadings that as-
serted claims 7, 14, 16, 19, 26 and 31 of the ’518 patent
were patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). ’518 Decision at *1, *3. The
district court held that the asserted claims of the ’518 pa-
tent were directed to the abstract idea of “providing infor-
mation based on a location on a map.” Id. at *7. The
district court then concluded that the claims “describe only
generic computer components applied to the abstract idea
of providing information based on a location on a map, not
an inventive concept.” Id. Thus, the district court con-
cluded that the asserted claims of the ’518 patent were in-
valid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and granted Niantic’s motion
for judgment on the pleadings. Id. at *8.
Niantic moved for summary judgment that asserted
claims 7, 22, 23, and 25 of the ’051 patent were patent-in-
eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. ’051 Decision at *1–2. The
district court concluded that the asserted claims of the ’051
patent were directed to the abstract idea of “receiving in-
formation about a location and displaying materials based
on that information.” ’051 Decision at *4; see id. at *5
(holding that the ’051 patent “is directed to filtering or pick-
ing information or materials relevant to a location or con-
text.”). The district court then held that “there is nothing
in the claims that is an inventive concept” and that “there
are no specific improvements in computer technology.” Id.
at *7. The district court thus concluded that the asserted
claims of the ’051 patent were patent-ineligible and
granted Niantic’s motion for summary judgment. Id.
NantWorks timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pur-
suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295 (a)(1).
Case: 24-2216 Document: 45 Page: 7 Filed: 04/23/2026

NANTWORKS, LLC v. NIANTIC, INC. 7

II. DISCUSSION
“We review a district court’s grant of summary judg-
ment according to the law of the regional circuit, here the
Ninth Circuit, where summary judgment is reviewed de
novo.” Kaneka Corp. v. Xiamen Kingdomway Grp.,
790 F.3d 1298, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Similarly, for grants
of judgment on the pleadings, “[w]e apply the procedural
law of the regional circuit, here the Ninth Circuit, which
reviews Rule 12(c) motions de novo.” PersonalWeb Techs.
LLC v. Google LLC, 8 F.4th 1310, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
“We review the district court’s ultimate patent-eligibility
conclusion de novo.” Id. at 1315.
To determine whether a patent claim is directed to pa-
tent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, we ap-
ply the two-step framework set forth by the Supreme Court
in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories,
Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012) and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd.
v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). At step
one, we determine whether the claims at issue are “di-
rected to” a patent-ineligible concept. Alice, 573 U.S.
at 217; accord Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77. At step two, we “con-
sider the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as
an ordered combination’ to determine whether the addi-
tional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a
patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78–79). The Supreme Court has de-
scribed the step two analysis “as a search for an ‘inventive
concept.’” Id. at 217 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72).
On appeal, NantWorks challenges the district court’s
patent eligibility analysis under both steps of the Al-
ice/Mayo framework for each of the ’518 and ’051 patents.
See Appellants’ Br. 23–62. We address each challenge in
turn.
Case: 24-2216 Document: 45 Page: 8 Filed: 04/23/2026

8 NANTWORKS, LLC v. NIANTIC, INC.

A.
We begin with NantWorks’s challenge to the district
court’s analysis of the asserted claims of the ’518 patent
under Alice/Mayo step one. See Appellants’ Br. 23–35. As
an initial matter, we reject NantWorks’s argument that the
district court oversimplified claim 12 of the ’518 patent in
concluding that it was directed to “providing information
based on a location on a map.” ’518 Decision at *7; see Ap-
pellants’ Br. 25–32. NantWorks contends that the district
court failed to consider more specific steps, such as “the use
of an area database, tessellated tiles, subareas of tiles, and
areas of interest; the focus on the AR content objects; and
the use of the views of interest.” Appellants’ Br. 25. We
disagree.
The district court’s characterization accurately reflects
that the asserted claims of the ’518 patent cover a system
to perform the following process: “(1) the subarea is se-
lected based on the area of interest and the user device;
(2) the AR content is selected based on association with the
tile subarea; and (3) the AR content is displayed in the view
of interest.” ’518 Decision at *5 (summarizing Nant-
Works’s argument). In other words, representative claim
7 of the ’518 patent determines a user’s location, deter-
mines relevant information to give the user, and displays
that content. ’518 patent claims 1, 7. NantWorks’s pur-
portedly more specific steps fail to change the character of
the claims. An “area database” relating to an “area of in-
terest” could comprise “any other suitable data related to a
layout of an area,” including a “map.” ’518 patent col. 2
ll. 30–37. The parties agreed that “tessellated tiles” just
means “tiles fitted together to cover an area without gaps,”
J.A. 5895, and at oral argument NantWorks conceded that

2 Thus, Nantworks suggests that the district court
oversimplified representative claim 7, which depends on
claim 1.
Case: 24-2216 Document: 45 Page: 9 Filed: 04/23/2026

NANTWORKS, LLC v. NIANTIC, INC. 9

tessellated tiles can include a map grid. Oral Arg.
04:20–04:34. A “view[ ] of interest could comprise . . . an
object of interest.” ’518 patent col. 2 l. 66 to col. 3 l. 4. And
“AR content objects” are just “virtual object[s] that [are] to
be presented to the user.” J.A. 5895. Thus, NantWorks’s
purported specific steps all comprise determining a loca-
tion on a map, providing relevant information based on
that location, and displaying that information.
We also agree with the district court that “providing
information based on a location on a map” is an abstract
idea. ’518 Decision at *7. We have held that claims where
a “user draws a shape on a map to select that area of the
map, and the claimed system then filters and displays data
limited to that area of the map” are directed to the abstract
idea of “limiting and coordinating the display of infor-
mation based on a user selection.” Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp.
v. Zillow Grp., Inc., 50 F.4th 1371, 1374–75, 1378
(Fed. Cir. 2022). As in Zillow, claim 7 of the ’518 patent
covers selecting an area of a map, filtering for relevant in-
formation based on that location, and displaying that infor-
mation. ’518 patent claim 7. Similarly, we have confirmed
that “rules to load digital image branding functions to us-
ers” when they are in particular geographic locations are
directed to the abstract idea of “providing information – in
this case, a processing function – based on meeting a con-
dition, e.g., matching a GPS location indication with a geo-
graphic location.” Sanderling Mgmt. Ltd. v. Snap Inc.,
65 F.4th 698, 701, 703 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quotation marks
omitted). So too here: providing information based on a
location on a map is an abstract idea.
Each of the steps of claim 7 of the ’518 patent could be
performed “‘using a pencil and paper,’” a “telltale sign of
abstraction.” PersonalWeb, 8 F.4th at 1316 (quoting Cy-
berSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366,
1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). An individual could determine
that her location is Washington, D.C. (“obtain an area of
interest via an area database based on at least the device
Case: 24-2216 Document: 45 Page: 10 Filed: 04/23/2026

10 NANTWORKS, LLC v. NIANTIC, INC.

location”); review a gridded map of Washington, D.C. with
neighborhoods (“access an area tile map of the area of in-
terest, the area tile map represented by a set of tile subar-
eas that includes one or more tessellated tiles”); identify a
neighborhood she is in that has points of interest identified
(“identify a tile subarea . . . wherein one or more tessel-
lated tiles within the identified tile subarea are associated
with one or more AR content objects”); and mark a partic-
ular point of interest she wishes to visit with a sticker re-
lated to the real world (“render the at least one of the one
or more AR content objects that is associated with the iden-
tified tile subarea on the display based on a view of inter-
est,” “wherein the at least one of the one or more AR
content objects is rendered on the display as an overlay of
an image related to the real-world”). ’518 patent
claims 1, 7. At best, the AR content objects “merely limit[ ]
the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing
technological environment,” which “does not render the
claims any less abstract.” Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC
v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
This case is not a case where the claims provide “limited
rules in a process specifically designed to achieve an im-
proved technological result in [a] conventional industry
practice.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
837 F.3d 1299, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As a result, Nant-
Works’s argument that the ’518 patent’s “use of tessellated
tiles as a specific technological method . . . to improve AR
systems” lacks merit. Appellants’ Br. 30–31.
In arguing that the asserted claims of the ’518 patent
represent a technological solution to a technological prob-
lem rather than an abstract idea, NantWorks relies heavily
on the idea of selective population of the memory, as recited
in the specification. See Appellants’ Br. 28–29, 32–34; ’518
patent col. 2 ll. 1–11. According to NantWorks, “[b]y doling
out only AR content objects associated with the tiles in the
device’s location, less memory is required and the net-
work’s bandwidth is less strained.” Appellants’ Br. 34. The
Case: 24-2216 Document: 45 Page: 11 Filed: 04/23/2026

NANTWORKS, LLC v. NIANTIC, INC. 11

problem with NantWorks’s argument is that the ’518 pa-
tent does not claim “doling out only AR content objects as-
sociated with the tiles in the device location.” See
ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 769
(Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[T]he specification cannot be used to im-
port details from the specification if those details are not
claimed.”); see Oral Arg. 03:23–04:20 (Q: “Counsel did you
say something to the effect of the claim at issue requires
‘selectively populating?’ . . . ” A: “It’s recited in the claim:
‘selectively populating device memory with AR content ob-
jects . . . . ’” Q: “I see the word populating . . . where is the
‘selectively populating’?” A: “I don’t think the word ‘selec-
tively’ is there.”). “Selectively” populating the device
memory is not claimed, see ’518 patent claims 1, 7, so any
benefits from selectively populating the device memory do
not alter the Alice/Mayo step one analysis. The asserted
claims of the ’518 patent are directed to an abstract idea.
NantWorks’s arguments at Alice/Mayo step two also do
not save the asserted claims. Appellants’ Br. 35–41. Nant-
Works contends that the asserted claims of the ’518 patent
contain an inventive concept in “the process of using tessel-
lated tiles and tile subareas associated with AR objects to
populate device memory with just those associated AR con-
tent objects so that they can be placed in a view of interest.”
Appellants’ Br. 37. Using tessellated tiles and tile subar-
eas to pick an area of a map to display with objects in a
view of interest is part of the abstract idea, which “cannot
supply the inventive concept that renders the invention
‘significantly more’ than” that abstract idea. BSG Tech
LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir.
2018) (quoting Alice, 573 U.S. at 218). And populating the
device memory with “just those associated AR content ob-
jects” is unclaimed.
This case also does not provide an inventive concept
through an “ordered combination of limitations.” Bascom
Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d
1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claims recite nothing
Case: 24-2216 Document: 45 Page: 12 Filed: 04/23/2026

12 NANTWORKS, LLC v. NIANTIC, INC.

more than abstract steps, implemented on a computer, ra-
ther than “fundamentally chang[ing] or improv[ing] how a
computer functions.” United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. PNC
Bank N.A., 139 F.4th 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2025); cf. Ap-
pellants’ Br. 40 (citing Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1347–50).
NantWorks has not identified any inventive concept aris-
ing from any claims, individually or in an ordered combi-
nation.
The allegations in the complaint do not change the Al-
ice/Mayo step two analysis. The complaint merely mirrors
the claim language and asserts that the steps provide in-
ventive concepts. See J.A. 1539 ¶¶ 41–43. However, the
asserted claims of the ’518 patent fail to provide anything
beyond the abstract idea. “[A] claim for a new abstract idea
is still an abstract idea.” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics
Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The district
court did not err in granting judgment on the pleadings
that the asserted claims of the ’518 patent are invalid un-
der 35 U.S.C. § 101.
B.
We now turn to NantWorks’s challenge to the district
court’s analysis regarding the ’051 patent. At Alice/Mayo
step one, as for the ’518 patent, NantWorks contends that
the district court ignored certain steps and oversimplified
the claim language when it determined that the asserted
claims of the ’051 patent are directed to the abstract idea
of “receiving information about a location and displaying
materials based on that information.” Appellants’ Br. 44
(quoting ’051 Decision at *4); see id. at 41–45.3 We disa-
gree.

3 NantWorks contends that the district court shifted
its description of the abstract idea throughout. Appellants’
Br. 14, 18–19, 42–43; compare ’051 Decision at *4 (“[T]he
asserted [’051 patent] claims are directed to the abstract
Case: 24-2216 Document: 45 Page: 13 Filed: 04/23/2026

NANTWORKS, LLC v. NIANTIC, INC. 13

The district court’s characterization of the asserted
claims accurately reflects that representative claim 1 of the
’051 patent presents steps to “obtain digital data repre-
sentative of an environment of an AR capable mobile de-
vice, the digital data including a device location of the AR
capable device and a virtual element attribute;” “determine
at least one context related to the AR capable device and
pertinent to the environment based at least on the device
location;” “identify relevant AR objects from the AR object
repository representing available AR objects corresponding
to the at least one context;” “determine whether to alter
presence of a relevant AR object based on at least the de-
vice location and the virtual element attribute;” and “cause
the AR capable device to render the relevant AR object ac-
cording to its altered presence.” ’051 patent claim 1; ’051
Decision at *4. In other words, the ’051 patent covers a sys-
tem to determine information (i.e., a context) about the en-
vironment and then alter the presence of a relevant AR
object based on the environment.
This process is directed to an “abstract idea for which
computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Uniloc USA, Inc.
v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., 957 F.3d 1303, 1306 (Fed. Cir.

idea of receiving information about a location and display-
ing materials based on that information.”), with id. at *5
(“[T]he ’051 patent is abstract because it is directed to fil-
tering or picking information or materials relevant to a lo-
cation or context.”). The exact words used to describe the
abstract idea differ, but the district court’s description of
the abstract idea was consistent. See, e.g., Ultramercial,
Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (de-
scribing the patent claims as directed to an abstract idea
that was “a method of using advertising as an exchange or
currency” and “the majority of the limitations describ[ing]
only the abstract idea of showing an advertisement before
delivering free content”). We see no reversible error.
Case: 24-2216 Document: 45 Page: 14 Filed: 04/23/2026

14 NANTWORKS, LLC v. NIANTIC, INC.

2020). “[T]ailoring content based on the viewer’s location”
is a “‘fundamental . . . practice long prevalent in our sys-
tem . . . .’” Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank
(USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting
Alice, 573 U.S. at 219). Even if other data were also option-
ally considered to form a context, “receiving information,
associating information with images, comparing the im-
ages, and presenting information based on that compari-
son” is also an abstract idea. Mobile Acuity Ltd. v. Blippar
Ltd., 110 F.4th 1280, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (noting that
claims comparing images while considering location data
are directed to an abstract idea); see also Sanderling
Mgmt., 65 F.4th at 703 (claims directed to an abstract idea
that use computers as “a tool to identify when a condition
is met and then to distribute information based on satisfac-
tion of that condition.”).4 The asserted claims of the ’051
patent are directed to a mode of organizing human activity,
not a technological improvement to a technological prob-
lem.
In arguing that the asserted claims of the ’051 patent
are not directed to an abstract idea, NantWorks contends
that the “virtual element attribute,” the requirement to “al-
ter presence” of particular AR objects, and the “render[ing]”
of AR objects means the claims are not directed to an ab-
stract idea. See Appellants’ Br. 43–45. We disagree. The
“virtual element attribute” was construed according to its
plain meaning, meaning a “virtual” “feature or quality”
that is “part of something else.” J.A. 5902–08. This generic
term does not add anything beyond the abstract steps in
claim 1 of the ’051 patent. The ’051 patent further states
that “presence could simply mean relevant AR objects are

4 As with the ’518 patent claims, there are no “lim-
ited rules in a process specifically designed to achieve an
improved technological result in [a] conventional industry
practice” in these claims. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316.
Case: 24-2216 Document: 45 Page: 15 Filed: 04/23/2026

NANTWORKS, LLC v. NIANTIC, INC. 15

present (enhanced) or not present (suppressed).” ’051 pa-
tent col. 18 ll. 21–23. Thus, to alter the presence of an AR
object could merely involve having it appear or disappear.5
Lastly, limiting the abstract idea to the field of AR does not
render it patent-eligible. See, e.g., Intell. Ventures I,
792 F.3d at 1366 (“An abstract idea does not become
nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field
of use or technological environment, such as the Inter-
net.”). The asserted claims of the ’051 patent are directed
to an abstract idea at step one of the Alice/Mayo frame-
work.6
NantWorks’s arguments for step two of the Alice/Mayo
framework are similarly not persuasive. NantWorks ar-
gues that the district court erred at the summary judgment
stage by ignoring uncontradicted expert testimony that the
steps of the asserted claims of the ’051 patent were

5 NantWorks argues that this alteration of presence
captures the specification’s alleged benefits of preventing
interference. See Appellants’ Br. 47–51. As discussed with
respect to the ’518 patent, NantWorks’s attempt to import
unclaimed advantages from the specification fails to
change the character of the ’051 patent asserted claims.
6 Because we agree with the district court’s analysis
of the ’051 patent asserted claims at step one of the Al-
ice/Mayo framework without consideration of the inventor
testimony relied on by the district court, we need not decide
NantWorks’s argument that the district court erred by re-
lying in part on testimony of an inventor. Appellants’
Br. 54–56. See King Pharms., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc.,
616 F.3d 1267, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“As an appellate
court, we are not limited to a district court’s stated reasons
for invalidating claims and can affirm a grant of summary
judgment on any ground supported by the record and ade-
quately raised below.”).
Case: 24-2216 Document: 45 Page: 16 Filed: 04/23/2026

16 NANTWORKS, LLC v. NIANTIC, INC.

unconventional. Oral Arg. 14:49–14:56; see also Appel-
lants’ Br. 56–62. We disagree.
As an initial matter, there is no factual dispute that the
’051 patent asserted claims merely invoke conventional
components. The asserted claims invoke the conventional
components discussed in the specification, see, e.g., ’051 pa-
tent col. 4 l. 51 to col. 5 l. 6; id. at col. 6 ll. 39–44, with ge-
neric computing terms, such as “server,” “repository,” and
“processor.” ’051 patent claim 1. “[I]nvocations of comput-
ers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are
insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the
application of an abstract idea.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic,
LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Elec.
Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355
(Fed. Cir. 2016)). Thus, the physical components claimed
in the ’051 patent do not contain an inventive concept.
NantWorks contends that the ’051 patent asserted
claims contain an inventive concept because they “allow[ ]
virtual objects to be selected and altered based on the spe-
cific scenario that the device is in and the virtual element
attributes.” Appellants’ Br. 57–58. As with the ’518 pa-
tent, this argument fails because it merely recites the ab-
stract idea again. See BSG Tech, 899 F.3d at 1290. And
citations to unclaimed benefits in the specification such as
improving on “silo[ed] virtual worlds or objects where each
company develops [its] own hosting infrastructure” or al-
lowing movement “as distinct manageable objects in an in-
frastructure agnostic manner,” Appellants’ Br. 58 (quoting
’051 patent col. 3 ll. 1–11), cannot provide an inventive con-
cept.
NantWorks relies on its expert, Dr. Turk, to support its
inventive concept arguments. Appellants’ Br. 59–60 (citing
J.A. 9559 ¶¶ 101–02; J.A. 9642 ¶ 312; J.A. 9643–44 ¶ 315;
J.A. 9645 ¶ 318; J.A. 9646–47 ¶¶ 323–27; J.A. 9651 ¶ 341).
Paragraphs 101 and 102 of Dr. Turk’s rebuttal expert re-
port merely repeat unclaimed passages from the
Case: 24-2216 Document: 45 Page: 17 Filed: 04/23/2026

NANTWORKS, LLC v. NIANTIC, INC. 17

specification. J.A. 9559 ¶¶ 101–02. Paragraphs 312 and
315 provide conclusory opinions that the claims improve
efficiency or object presentation by incorporating un-
claimed features. J.A. 9642 ¶ 312; J.A. 9643–44 ¶ 315.
Paragraphs 318, 323, and 324 provide conclusory asser-
tions of inventiveness without any more detail. J.A. 9645
¶ 318; J.A. 9646–47 ¶¶ 323–24. Paragraphs 325 through
327 generally describe how the ’051 patent overcame a re-
jection during prosecution. J.A. 9646–47 ¶¶ 325–27. And
paragraph 341 discusses the abstract benefits of the as-
serted claims, such as “the ability to personalize AR expe-
riences using a location-derived context.” J.A. 9651 ¶ 341.
None of NantWorks’s cited expert report excerpts create a
genuine dispute as to any material fact that precludes sum-
mary judgment because none of NantWorks’s cited ex-
cerpts identify an inventive concept that is in the claims.
The district court correctly granted summary judgment of
patent ineligibility as to the asserted claims of the ’051 pa-
tent.
III. CONCLUSION
We have considered NantWorks’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. We affirm the district
court’s judgment that the asserted claims are invalid under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
AFFIRMED