Last week, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in Simio, LLC v. FlexSim Software Products, Inc., No. 2020-1171 (Dec. 29, 2020), affirming a district court’s dismissal on grounds of patent ineligibility.
Simio sued FlexSim for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,156,468 (“the ’468 patent”). The claims of the ‘468 patent address object-oriented simulations. While the background of the ‘468 patent acknowledges that object-oriented simulations have existed since the 1960s, the purported invention of the ‘468 patent concerns making them easier by letting users build them with graphics instead of programming. FlexSim moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting the ‘468 patent’s claims are patent ineligible under § 101. Simio opposed the motion, and in its opposition brief included a footnote stating: “Simio also reserves the right to amend its [c]omplaint in order to more fully develop these issues.” The Court’s scheduling order identified March 15, 2019 as the last day to file a motion to amend the pleadings without good cause. The hearing on the 12(b)(6) motion occurred on May 29, 2019.
In its decision, the district court applied the two-step Alice framework to the § 101 challenge and granted FlexSim’s 12(b)(6) motion. Specifically, the district court concluded that (1) the claims are directed to the ineligible abstract idea of substituting text-based coding with graphical processing and (2) that the claim elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, offered no inventive concept or alteration of computer functionality sufficient to transform the system into a patent-eligible application. Simio moved for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) and for leave to file a proposed amended complaint. The district court denied the motion finding Simio had failed to present a valid justification for reconsideration and that the proposed amendment would be futile. Simio appealed.
The Federal Circuit affirmed. Relying heavily on the background and specification of the ‘468 patent, the Court agreed with the district court’s conclusion that “[s]imply applying the already widespread practice of using graphics instead of programming to the environment of object-oriented simulations is no more than an abstract idea.” The Court further held there was no inventive concept capable of rendering the claims patent eligible. Finally, the Court affirmed the district court’s denial of leave to amend both because the amendment would have been futile and because Simio did not show good cause for seeking leave to amend after the deadline.