Receivership Estate of AudienceScience Inc. v. Google LLC

Receivership Estate of AudienceScience Inc. v. Google LLC The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the asserted claims are directed to the abstract idea of targeting advertisements to internet users to maximize revenue generation and lack an inventive concept. The court also held that AudienceScience forfeited its request for leave to amend by never seeking amendment below or identifying specific curative allegations. The decision reinforces that ad-targeting claims using user history, page context, and revenue-based weighting may remain abstract where the claims and specification do not recite a specific technological improvement. Affirmed. The representative claim selected an online advertisement using page-request history, keyword mappings, and a selection weighting based on revenue-generating performance. At Alice step one, the court characterized the claims as directed to targeted advertising to maximize revenue, not to a computer-specific or internet-centric technological solution. At Alice step two, combining conventional page-context and user-history targeting did not supply an inventive concept, and the performance-score weighting was not claimed or described with enough specificity to transform the abstract idea. The court distinguished cases involving specific improvements to computer functionality, including DDR Holdings, SRI, Finjan, McRO, and Weisner. The amendment issue was forfeited because AudienceScience did not seek leave to amend, attach a proposed amended complaint, move for reconsideration, or identify specific allegations it would add. § 101 waiver / forfeiture non-precedential § 101 waiver / forfeiture non-precedential § 101 waiver / forfeiture non-precedential