Case: 23-1107    Document: 52    Page: 1   Filed: 09/03/2024




   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                BROADBAND ITV, INC.,
                  Plaintiff-Appellant

                            v.

   AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM SERVICES
      LLC, AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,
              Defendants-Appellees
             ______________________

                        2023-1107
                  ______________________

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 Western District of Texas in No. 6:20-cv-00921-ADA, Judge
 Alan D. Albright.
                   ______________________

                Decided: September 3, 2024
                  ______________________

     JEFFREY A. LAMKEN, MoloLamken LLP, Washington,
 DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by
 RAYINER HASHEM; JONATHAN E. BARBEE, BENOIT QUARMBY,
 New York, NY; DAVID ALBERTI, ROBERT KRAMER, HONG
 LIN, Kramer Alberti Lim & Tonkovich LLP, Burlingame,
 CA.

    J. DAVID HADDEN, Fenwick & West LLP, Mountain
 View, CA, argued for defendants-appellees. Also repre-
 sented by RAVI RAGAVENDRA RANGANATH, SAINA S.
Case: 23-1107     Document: 52     Page: 2    Filed: 09/03/2024




 2                    BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC.




 SHAMILOV; TODD RICHARD GREGORIAN, San Francisco, CA;
 JONATHAN G. TAMIMI, Seattle, WA.
                ______________________

      Before DYK, REYNA, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
 REYNA, Circuit Judge.
     Broadband iTV sued Amazon in the Western District
 of Texas alleging patent infringement of five patents. Am-
 azon moved for summary judgment, arguing that all as-
 serted claims were patent ineligible subject matter under
 

. The district court granted Amazon’s mo-
 tion, finding the claims were directed to an abstract idea
 and the patents failed to provide an inventive step that
 transformed that abstract idea into a patent-eligible inven-
 tion. Broadband iTV timely appeals. For the following rea-
 sons, we affirm.
                         BACKGROUND
                  A. The Asserted Patents
     Broadband iTV (“BBiTV”) owns U.S. Patent Nos.
 10,028,026 (’026 patent); 9,648,388 (’388 patent);
 10,536,750 (’750 patent); 10,536,751 (’751 patent); and
 9,973,825 (’825 patent). Four of the five asserted patents
 are related—the ’026, ’388, ’750, and ’751 patents (’026 pa-
 tent family)—and all claim priority to the same patent ap-
 plication. The ’388, ’750, and ’751 patents share a common
 specification that overlaps significantly with the ’026 pa-
 tent’s specification. The ’825 patent is unrelated to the ’026
 patent family but covers similar technology.
                    i. ’026 Patent Family
     The ’026 patent family generally relates to electronic
 programming guides for televisions. According to the ’026
 patent, “video-on-demand” systems had recently emerged.
 ’026 patent, 2:13–36. These systems offered an “interactive
 television service” by allowing a viewer to navigate through
Case: 23-1107     Document: 52     Page: 3    Filed: 09/03/2024




 BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC.                      3



 a program guide using a remote control and select a desired
 video program. 

 The ’026 patent family seeks to im-
 prove existing program guides by automating the creation
 of a hierarchically arranged, template-based program
 guide. 

 at Abstract, 3:16–4:5. A computer automatically
 creates the program guide by using video content and as-
 sociated metadata that content providers upload to a
 server. 

     For purposes of this appeal, the parties treat claim 1 of
 the ’026 patent as representative of the ’026 patent family
 claims. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 

 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Claim 1 recites:
     1. An Internet-connected digital device for receiv-
     ing, via the Internet, video content to be viewed by
     a subscriber of a video-on-demand system using a
     hierarchically arranged electronic program guide,
     the Internet-connected digital device being config-
     ured to obtain and present to the subscriber an
     electronic program guide as a templatized video-
     on-demand display, which uses at least one of a
     plurality of different display templates to which
     the Internet-connected digital device has access, to
     enable a subscriber using the Internet-connected
     digital device to navigate in a drill-down manner
     through titles by category information in order to
     locate a particular one of the titles whose associ-
     ated video content is desired for viewing on the In-
     ternet-connected digital device using the same
     category information as was designated by a video
     content provider in metadata associated with the
     video content;
     wherein the templatized video-on-demand display
     has been generated in a plurality of layers, com-
     prising: (a) a first layer comprising a background
     screen to provide at least one of a basic color, logo,
     or graphical theme to display; (b) a second layer
Case: 23-1107     Document: 52     Page: 4    Filed: 09/03/2024




 4                    BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC.




     comprising a particular display template from the
     plurality of different display templates layered on
     the background screen, wherein the particular dis-
     play template comprises one or more reserved ar-
     eas that are reserved for displaying content
     provided by a different layer of the plurality of lay-
     ers; and (c) a third layer comprising reserved area
     content generated using the received video content,
     the associated metadata, and the associated plural-
     ity of images to be displayed in the one or more re-
     served areas in the particular display template as
     at least one of text, an image, a navigation link, and
     a button,
     wherein the navigating through titles in a drill-
     down manner comprises navigating from a first
     level of the hierarchical structure of the video-on-
     demand content menu to a second level of the hier-
     archical structure to locate the particular one of the
     titles, and
     wherein a first template of the plurality of different
     display templates is used as the particular display
     template for the templatized display for displaying
     the first level of the hierarchical structure and
     wherein a second template of the plurality of differ-
     ent display templates is used as the particular dis-
     play template for the templatized display for
     displaying the second level of the hierarchical
     structure,
     wherein the received video content was uploaded to
     a Web-based content management system by a con-
     tent provider device associated with the video con-
     tent provider via the Internet in a digital video
     format, along with associated metadata including
     title information and category information, and
     along with an associated plurality of images desig-
     nated by the video content provider, the associated
Case: 23-1107     Document: 52      Page: 5   Filed: 09/03/2024




 BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC.                      5



     metadata specifying a respective hierarchical loca-
     tion of a respective title of the video content within
     the electronic program guide to be displayed on the
     Internet-connected digital device using the respec-
     tive hierarchically-arranged category information
     associated with the respective title,
     wherein at least one of the uploaded associated plu-
     rality of images designated by the video content
     provider is displayed with the associated respective
     title in the templatized video-on-demand display.
 ’026 patent, claim 1.
                         ii. ’825 Patent
     The ’825 patent also generally relates to electronic pro-
 gramming guides for “video-on-demand” television sys-
 tems. ’825 patent, 1:58–64. The patent seeks to improve
 existing program guides by adjusting the order of catego-
 ries of listings within a guide based on a user’s viewing his-
 tory. Through these readjustments, the system reduces the
 number of keypresses needed for a viewer to reach their
 desired video program. 

 at Abstract.
     For purposes of this appeal, the parties treat claim 1 of
 the ’825 patent as representative of the ’825 patent claims
 but also address dependent claim 15. See Berkheimer, 

. Claim 1 recites:
     1. A method for dynamic adjustment of an individ-
     ualized electronic program guide where the adjust-
     ment is based at least in part on individual viewer
     consumption of video-on-demand programs on a
     subscriber TV system to enable navigating by an
     individual viewer in a TV subscriber household
     that may have a plurality of viewers to video-on-
     demand programs offered on a video-on-demand
     platform of a digital TV services provider which is
     at least part of a digital TV services provider sys-
     tem, the method comprising:
Case: 23-1107     Document: 52     Page: 6    Filed: 09/03/2024




 6                    BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC.




     (a) maintaining, at the digital TV services provider
     system, an electronic program guide database com-
     prising electronic program guide data, and a usage
     history database comprising a log of selection data
     corresponding to the viewer’s consumption of the
     video-on-demand programs using the video-on-de-
     mand platform;
     (b) establishing, at the digital TV services provider
     system, viewer-individualized electronic program
     guide data for each of a plurality of individual view-
     ers to enable the generation of viewer-individual-
     ized electronic program guides for each of said
     plurality of individual viewers at the subscriber TV
     system for use in accessing the video-on-demand
     programs, and allowing each respective individual
     viewer to access a display of their respective
     viewer-individualized electronic program guide
     through a Log-In step by which the respective indi-
     vidual viewer operating the subscriber TV system
     can be associated with their respective viewer-indi-
     vidualized electronic program guide;
     (c) in one or more previous sessions while said re-
     spective individual viewer is logged onto their re-
     spective viewer-individualized electronic program
     guide in order to access the video-on-demand pro-
     grams on the subscriber TV system, tracking, at
     the digital TV services provider system, said re-
     spective individual viewer’s consumption of the
     video-on-demand programs listed in their respec-
     tive viewer-individualized electronic program
     guide and saving the selection data in the usage
     history database;
     (d) determining, at the digital TV services provider
     system, an order of relevance of a plurality of cate-
     gory names for said respective individual viewer
     selection of video-on-demand programs from their
Case: 23-1107       Document: 52   Page: 7   Filed: 09/03/2024




 BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC.                    7



     respective viewer-individualized electronic pro-
     gram guide based at least in part on said respective
     individual viewer’s selection data from said one or
     more previous sessions as stored in the usage his-
     tory database and reflecting said respective indi-
     vidual viewer’s preferences for selection of video-
     on-demand programs from their respective viewer-
     individualized electronic program guide, and based
     at least in part on the electronic program guide
     data in the electronic program guide database; and
     (e) at the start of each new session when said re-
     spective individual viewer logs onto their respec-
     tive viewer-individualized electronic program
     guide in order to access video-on-demand programs
     on the subscriber TV system, reordering a current
     display listing of the category names for categories
     of video-on-demand programs on said respective in-
     dividual viewer’s viewer-individualized electronic
     program guide based at least in part on said deter-
     mined order of relevance.
 ’825 patent, claim 1.
     Claim 15 recites:
     15. The method of claim 1, further comprising au-
     tomatically generating an additional category or
     subcategory based on the log of said respective in-
     dividual viewer’s consumption of the video-on-de-
     mand programs maintained in the usage history
     database.
 

 at claim 15.
                     B. Procedural History
     In October 2020, BBiTV sued Amazon.com, Inc., Ama-
 zon.com Services LLC, and Amazon Web Services, Inc. (col-
 lectively, Amazon) in the United States District Court for
 the Western District of Texas alleging patent infringement.
Case: 23-1107     Document: 52     Page: 8    Filed: 09/03/2024




 8                    BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC.




 BBiTV asserted claims 1, 6, and 7 of the ’026 patent; claims
 1, 13, and 17 of the ’388 patent; claims 1, 7, and 8 of the
 ’750 patent; claims 1, 3, and 8 of the ’751 patent; and claims
 1, 10, 15, and 17 of the ’825 patent. Amazon moved for
 summary judgment in June 2022, arguing that all of
 BBiTV’s asserted claims were patent ineligible under
 

. The district court agreed, granted Ama-
 zon’s summary judgment motion, and entered judgment
 against BBiTV. See Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.com,
 Inc., 

 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2022).
     In conducting its § 101 analysis, the district court ap-
 plied the two-step test set forth by the Supreme Court in
 Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 

 (2014). The district court conducted separate analyses for
 the ’026 patent family and the ’825 patent.
                    i. ’026 Patent Family
      At Alice step one, the district court determined the
 claims “are directed to the abstract idea of receiving hier-
 archical information and organizing the display of video
 content.” Broadband, 

, at *15. The dis-
 trict court likened the claims to both a “computerized im-
 plementation of [a] business process” and the abstract idea
 of sending classification information with content or dis-
 playing content hierarchically. 

 at *15–16. The district
 court also considered the generic nature of the claimed
 server and the “routine and conventional practice” of using
 the claimed templates. 

. The district court con-
 cluded that neither feature “transform[ed]” or “save[d] the
 claims under Alice.” 

     At Alice step two, the district court determined nothing
 transforms the claims into something other than the ab-
 stract idea itself. 

 at *17–18. The district court deter-
 mined there is no genuine dispute of material fact that the
 claims “recite only generic and conventional components,
 arranged in a conventional manner, and provide only con-
 ventional functionalities.” 

. After considering
Case: 23-1107     Document: 52     Page: 9    Filed: 09/03/2024




 BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC.                     9



 BBiTV fact and expert testimony, along with the ’026 and
 ’825 patents’ specifications, the district court found no gen-
 uine dispute of material fact as to whether the claimed
 server or hierarchical organization was conventional. 

 The district court also determined that the claimed hierar-
 chical navigation and the use of templates are fundamental
 human practices that form the abstract idea itself. 

                        ii. ’825 Patent
     At Alice step one, the district court determined the
 claims “are directed to the abstract idea of collecting and
 using a viewer’s video history to suggest categories of video
 content.” 

. The district court reasoned that
 “clerks at video rental stores” have done what the ’825 pa-
 tent claims for years. 

 The district court determined
 that the claims are not meaningfully different from other
 claims that this court has found abstract, including claims
 directed to collecting user information and providing con-
 tent based on that information. 

 at *11–12 (collecting
 cases).
      At Alice step two, the district court determined nothing
 transforms the claims into something other than the ab-
 stract idea itself. 

 at *13–15. The district court reasoned
 that the ’825 patent itself “admits that tracking systems
 that could collect the users’ viewing history were ‘conven-
 tional.’” 

 at *13 (citing ’825 patent, 7:28–38). Further,
 the district court explained, there is no genuine dispute of
 material fact that the claims recite conventional databases,
 servers, and televisions, combined with a generic method
 of identifying a user. 

 at *13–14.
    The district court determined that all asserted claims
 were patent ineligible under § 101. BBiTV appeals. We
 have jurisdiction under 

(a)(1).
                    STANDARD OF REVIEW
    We review a district court’s grant of summary judg-
 ment under the law of the regional circuit, here the Fifth
Case: 23-1107    Document: 52      Page: 10    Filed: 09/03/2024




 10                   BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC.




 Circuit. See Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs.,
 Inc., 

 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Fifth Cir-
 cuit reviews summary judgment de novo. 

 Summary
 judgment is proper when, viewing all evidence in the light
 most favorable to the nonmovant, there is no genuine dis-
 pute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to
 judgment as a matter of law. Triple Tee Golf, Inc. v. Nike,
 Inc., 

 (5th Cir. 2007).
     We review decisions of § 101 patent eligibility de novo.
 Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 

 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Patent eligibility is a question of law that
 may be based on underlying factual findings. Berkheimer,
 

. Section 101 patent eligibility may be re-
 solved on summary judgment so long as there is not a gen-
 uine dispute of material fact.          BSG Tech LLC v.
 Buyseasons, Inc., 

 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
                         DISCUSSION
     Section 101 of the Patent Act provides that: “Whoever
 invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
 manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and
 useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor,
 subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”
 

. The Supreme Court has found that § 101
 “contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature,
 natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patenta-
 ble.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 216 (citation omitted). The Su-
 preme Court has articulated a two-step test, commonly
 referred to as the “Alice” test, to determine whether a pa-
 tent claims patent-ineligible subject matter. Id. at 217–18.
 At Alice step one, we determine whether a claim is directed
 to a patent-ineligible concept, here an abstract idea. Id.
 at 217. If not, the inquiry ends. But if the claims are di-
 rected to an abstract idea, we must proceed to step two. At
 Alice step two, we review whether the claim recites ele-
 ments sufficient to transform it into a patent-eligible appli-
 cation of the abstract idea. Id. at 217–18.
Case: 23-1107    Document: 52     Page: 11    Filed: 09/03/2024




 BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC.                   11



                   A. ’026 Patent Family
                      i. Alice Step One
    The district court determined the claims of the ’026 pa-
 tent family “are directed to the abstract idea of receiving
 hierarchical information and organizing the display of
 video content.” Broadband, 

, at *15.
 BBiTV argues that the ’026 patent family claims are di-
 rected to patentable improvements to computer user inter-
 faces, and that the district court erred by dismissing claim
 elements it found to be generic at Alice step one rather than
 step two. We disagree with BBiTV.
     At Alice step one, we must determine whether the
 claims at issue are directed to patent-ineligible subject
 matter, here, an abstract idea. The “directed to” inquiry
 requires that we look to the character of the claims as a
 whole. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 

 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In addition to the claim language itself,
 we may also examine the patent’s specification to deter-
 mine the meaning of the claims as a whole. Yu v. Apple
 Inc., 

, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (citation omitted).
 The step one inquiry often turns to the question of what the
 patent asserts as the claimed advance over the prior art.
 

     Whether a claim is directed to a longstanding or funda-
 mental human practice can inform whether a claim is ab-
 stract. CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 

,
 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Syman-
 tec Corp., 

 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Addition-
 ally, whether a patent’s claims can be performed in the
 human mind or using a pencil and paper can inform
 whether a claim is abstract. PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v.
 Google LLC, 

, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2021). But the
 Alice inquiry is not a prior art search. See CardioNet, 

. And it is not enough to “merely trace the
 invention to some real-world analogy.” Data Engine Techs.
 LLC v. Google LLC, 

 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Case: 23-1107    Document: 52      Page: 12     Filed: 09/03/2024




 12                   BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC.




     The claims of the ’026 patent family are directed to re-
 ceiving metadata and organizing the display of video con-
 tent based on that metadata. Representative claim 1 of the
 ’026 patent recites an “electronic program guide” that is au-
 tomatically created using “metadata” that was “uploaded
 to a [server] by a content provider.” ’026 patent, claim 1.
 Specifically, the claimed metadata determines the “respec-
 tive hierarchical location of a respective title of the video
 content within the electronic program guide to be dis-
 played.” 

    The specification further confirms our understanding of
 what the claims are directed to. According to the ’026 pa-
 tent, an increase in content offerings created the need to
 “enable home TV viewers to find something of interest for
 viewing among the vast numbers of new programs.” 

 at 2:66–3:12. In response, the ’026 patent’s claimed ad-
 vance is using a computer to generate a programming
 guide that automatically “list[s] the title of the video con-
 tent in an electronic program guide” according to metadata
 uploaded by a content provider. 

 at 3:16–37.
     The district court correctly determined that receiving
 metadata and organizing the display of video content based
 on that metadata is abstract. The ’026 patent family
 claims are substantively similar to claims this court has
 previously found directed to abstract ideas. In Electric
 Power Group, we found patent ineligible certain claims for
 “monitoring of an electric power grid by collecting data
 from multiple data sources, analyzing the data, and dis-
 playing the results.” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
 

 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In TLI, we found pa-
 tent ineligible claims for “classifying and storing digital im-
 ages in an organized manner” based on “‘classification
 data,’ such as a date or timestamp.” In re TLI Commc’ns
 LLC Pat. Litig., 

, 609–610 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
 Here, the ’026 patent family claims are directed to receiv-
 ing and displaying information like Electric Power Group
 and organizing information based on classification
Case: 23-1107    Document: 52      Page: 13    Filed: 09/03/2024




 BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC.                    13



 information like TLI. As we have previously recognized,
 the combination of two abstract ideas does not render an
 abstract idea less abstract. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nin-
 tendo Co., 

 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
     BBiTV’s first argument relies heavily on Core Wireless
 and Data Engine. In Core Wireless, we held that claims
 directed to a “particular manner of summarizing and pre-
 senting information in electronic devices” were not ab-
 stract. 

. We explained that the claims at
 issue there were directed to the features of an improved
 user interface, including the size and location of the user
 interface. 

 at 1362–63. In Data Engine, we held that
 claims directed to a “specific method for navigating
 through three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets” were
 not abstract. 906 F.3d at 1007–08. There, the patent’s
 specification identified the shortcomings and technological
 challenges in computer spreadsheets, and the claims pro-
 vided a specific solution to the “known technological prob-
 lem.” 

     Unlike the claims in Core Wireless or Data Engine, the
 ’026 patent family claims are not directed to an improved
 structure or function of a user interface. It is true that the
 claims are directed to a program guide, which is a type of
 user interface. But the fact that the claims involve a user
 interface does not automatically put the claims in the same
 category as Core Wireless and Data Engine. Instead, Core
 Wireless and Data Engine require an improved structure or
 function that is missing here. 880 F.3d at 1362–63; 906
 F.3d at 1007–09. Put another way, Core Wireless and Data
 Engine require a specific, technological solution to a tech-
 nological problem. Here, the claims do not recite an im-
 proved structure or function within a user guide, but
 rather, are directed to arranging content in a particular or-
 der. Reordering content within a user guide is not a suffi-
 cient technological solution to a technological problem, but
 rather a results-oriented abstract idea. See Elec. Power
 Grp., LLC, 

.
Case: 23-1107   Document: 52     Page: 14    Filed: 09/03/2024




 14                  BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC.




     BBiTV argues that the claimed templates provide spe-
 cific structure similar to Core Wireless and Data Engine.
 We disagree. While claim 1 does recite a “templatized”
 video-on-demand display that consists of three layers, the
 use of templates to create the electronic programming
 guide is not the claimed advance. Instead, as previously
 discussed, the claims are directed to receiving metadata
 and organizing the display of video content based on that
 metadata. The claimed templates themselves do not pro-
 vide a technological solution or improve any computer-re-
 lated function. See Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Zillow Grp.,
 Inc., 

, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
    BBiTV’s second argument is that the district court per-
 formed an Alice step two inquiry within Alice step one. We
 discern no error in the district court’s analysis.
     We have observed that steps one and two are “plainly
 related” and patent eligibility may “involve overlapping
 scrutiny of the content of the claims.” Elec. Power Grp.,
 LLC, 

. This is not to say that the steps
 may be conflated or that a particular step may be disre-
 garded. The step one analysis does not require that we “ex-
 clude the possibility that any particular inventive means
 are to be found somewhere in the claims.” 

 But we have
 recognized that it may be necessary to analyze convention-
 ality at step one as well as step two, such as to determine
 whether a claim is directed to a longstanding or fundamen-
 tal human practice or to determine what the patent asserts
 is the claimed advance over the prior art. See CareDx, Inc.
 v. Natera, Inc., 

 (Fed. Cir. 2022); see
 also Bozeman Fin. LLC v. Fed. Rsrv. Bank of Atlanta, 

 (Fed. Cir. 2020). When it comes to analyzing
 conventionality, there is no “bright line between the two
 steps.” CareDx, 

. Yet we must take care
 to avoid allowing a conventionality analysis at step one to
 render step two superfluous (except where the claimed in-
 novation at step two is nothing more than practice of the
 abstract idea of step one). To find otherwise would ignore
Case: 23-1107    Document: 52     Page: 15   Filed: 09/03/2024




 BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC.                  15



 the Supreme Court’s guidance in Alice, which clearly set
 forth a two-step inquiry. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18.
     Here, the district court determined at step one that the
 claimed “[w]eb-based content management system . . . is a
 generic server.” Broadband, 

, at *16.
 Then, still at step one, the district court considered the
 claimed “templates,” and determined they merely provided
 “a generic environment” and their use is “a routine and con-
 ventional practice.” 

 We agree that the claimed server
 and templates do not change the fact that the claims are
 directed to an abstract idea. The claimed server and tem-
 plates do not change the outcome at step one because the
 claims are not directed to an improved server or provide a
 technological solution to template technology. Put another
 way, analyzing the conventionality of the claimed content
 management system and templates at step one is proper
 for the purpose of determining what the claims are directed
 to. We determine the claims of the ’026 patent family are
 directed to an abstract idea.
                     ii. Alice Step Two
     The district court determined nothing transforms the
 claims into something other than the abstract idea because
 there is no genuine dispute of material fact that the claims
 “recite only generic and conventional components, ar-
 ranged in a conventional manner, and provide only conven-
 tional functionalities.” Broadband, 

,
 at *17. BBiTV points to three aspects of the claims that it
 believes transform the claims to more than the abstract
 idea: first, the idea of generating displays “automatically
 from specific template types” based on data that content
 providers upload to a database; second, the content man-
 agement system which is a type of server; and third, the
 claimed templates. Appellant Br. 50–53. We agree with
 the district court that none of these elements transform the
 claims at step two into something other than the abstract
 idea itself.
Case: 23-1107    Document: 52     Page: 16    Filed: 09/03/2024




 16                  BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC.




     At Alice step two, we 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.
 Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citation omitted). The patent-
 ineligible concept itself cannot transform the invention into
 something significantly more than that concept. BSG Tech
 LLC, 

. Similarly, claim elements or com-
 binations of claim elements that are routine, conventional
 or well-understood cannot transform the claims. 

 at 1290–91. When the patent’s specification “describes the
 components and features listed in the claims generically,”
 it “support[s] the conclusion that these components and
 features are conventional.” Weisner v. Google LLC, 

, 1083–84 (Fed. Cir. 2022); see also Beteiro,
 LLC v. DraftKings Inc., 

, 1357–58
 (Fed. Cir. 2024).
     The district court correctly determined that the ’026 pa-
 tent family claims do not include something “significantly
 more” than the abstract idea itself. The district court ex-
 amined the intrinsic record and BBiTV’s fact and expert
 testimony regarding the nature of certain features of the
 claims and found no genuine dispute of material fact that
 precluded summary judgment.              Broadband, 

, at *17–18. We agree with the district court.
    BBiTV argues that the idea of generating displays “au-
 tomatically from specific template types” based on data
 that content providers upload to a database transforms the
 ’026 patent family into more than the abstract idea. We
 are not persuaded. Automation of an abstract idea does not
 constitute an inventive concept. See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Am-
 azon.com, Inc., 

; see also Alice, 573 U.S.
 at 221–24. Further, this argument is nothing more than
 the abstract idea itself. See BSG Tech LLC, 

. Receiving and displaying information is the ab-
 stract idea we identified at step one. Those elements,
Case: 23-1107    Document: 52     Page: 17    Filed: 09/03/2024




 BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC.                   17



 therefore, cannot transform that idea into significantly
 more.
    BBiTV next argues that the content management sys-
 tem transforms the ’026 patent family into more than the
 abstract idea. This argument fares no better than the last.
 The district court concluded that the content management
 system is a conventional server.         Broadband, 

, at *17. Notably, the ’026 patent’s specifica-
 tion does not claim to improve server technology, but in-
 stead discloses using conventional server capabilities such
 as “manag[ing] a [d]atabase,” and “retrieving” and “trans-
 mitt[ing]” content. ’026 patent, 3:44–53, 5:24–29, 6:4–9.
 The district court also considered inventor testimony that
 the server used to implement the claimed content manage-
 ment system was available “off the market.” Broadband,
 

, at *17 (citation omitted). We agree with
 the district court that no genuine dispute of material fact
 precludes summary judgment.
     BBiTV’s third argument is that the claimed templates
 transform the claims to more than the abstract idea. We
 are not persuaded. The district court found no genuine dis-
 pute of material fact (albeit, at step one), that the claimed
 templates are generic, routine and well-understood in the
 art. The ’026 patent’s specification does not purport to im-
 prove templates, but instead discloses using known tem-
 plates, such as those created by a “template design firm,”
 to automate content-creation. ’026 patent, 7:44–49. In
 reaching its conclusion, the district court also considered
 BBiTV’s infringement expert’s admission that templates
 “were a known entity” at the time of the invention. Broad-
 band, 

, at *10. We agree with the district
 court’s conclusion. When properly analyzed at step two, we
 reach the same conclusion as the district court and deter-
 mine that the claimed templates do not transform the
 claims to more than the abstract idea.
Case: 23-1107    Document: 52      Page: 18    Filed: 09/03/2024




 18                   BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC.




     Because we determine the claims of the ’026 patent fam-
 ily do not include “significantly more” than the abstract
 idea itself, we find that the claims are patent ineligible un-
 der § 101.
                        B. ’825 Patent
                      i. Alice Step One
     The district court determined the claims of the ’825 pa-
 tent “are directed to the abstract idea of collecting and us-
 ing a viewer’s video history to suggest categories of video
 content.” Id. at *11. BBiTV argues that the ’825 patent
 claims are directed to patentable improvements to com-
 puter user interfaces, again relying on Data Engine and
 Core Wireless. We disagree with BBiTV.
    Representative claim 1 of the ’825 patent is directed to
 the abstract idea of collecting and using viewing history
 data to recommend categories of video content. Claim 1
 recites “maintaining . . . a usage history database,” using a
 “Log-In step” to track an “individual viewer’s consump-
 tion,” and “generat[ing] . . . viewer-individualized elec-
 tronic program guides.” ’825 patent, claim 1. Claim 1 does
 not disclose how to maintain a usage history database,
 track viewer consumption, or generate a program guide.
 Instead, the claims recite functions in the abstract.
     The ’825 patent’s specification confirms that the claims
 are directed to an abstract idea. The specification discloses
 claim 1 as “(a) maintaining a list of category names . . . (b)
 tracking a viewer’s past history . . . [and] (c) reordering a
 current display listing of the category names based on
 [viewer history].” Id. at 3:1–9.
    Put another way, claim 1 is directed to a type of “tar-
 geted advertising,” which we have repeatedly found ab-
 stract. See, e.g., Free Stream Media Corp. v. Alphonso Inc.,
 

, 1361–62 (Fed. Cir. 2021); Intell. Ventures I
 LLC v. Cap. One Bank (USA), 

 (Fed.
 Cir. 2015); Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp.,
Case: 23-1107    Document: 52      Page: 19    Filed: 09/03/2024




 BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC.                    19



 

 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Many of our targeted
 advertising cases have noted, as the district court did here,
 that patent claims on targeted advertising are abstract.
 See Intell. Ventures I LLC, 

 (tailoring in-
 formation, as in targeted advertising, is a “fundamental . . .
 practice long prevalent in our system” (citation omitted)).
 Further, determining content to recommend based on user
 consumption history can be performed in the human mind
 or using a pencil and paper. This is another indication that
 the claims are abstract. See PersonalWeb Techs., 8 F.4th
 at 1316; see also Beteiro, 

. Indeed, the
 patent claims differ little from a check-out system at a pub-
 lic library. Consistent with our “targeted advertising” prec-
 edent, we conclude that the claims of the ’825 patent are
 directed to an abstract idea.
     The stated goal of the ’825 patent, to reduce the number
 of “keypresses needed for a viewer to navigate to a title of
 interest,” does not compel a different result. ’825 patent,
 Abstract. The reduction in keypresses is achieved through
 the recited targeted advertising method. And that method
 is abstract. As we have previously observed, a claim that
 results in increased speed or efficiency may still be directed
 to an abstract idea, as is the case here. See Intell. Ventures
 I LLC, 792 F.3d at 1366–67.
     BBiTV argues that the claims of the ’825 patent are di-
 rected to an improved structure or function of a user inter-
 face as in Core Wireless and Data Engine. We disagree.
 While claim 1 does involve a user interface, merely identi-
 fying a user interface does not invoke Core Wireless and
 Data Engine. The ’825 patent claims are directed to reor-
 dering content within a user guide based on viewing his-
 tory, which does not rise to a technological solution to a
 technological problem. Similar to the ’025 patent family
 claims, the ’825 patent claims do not claim a technological
 solution to a technological problem.
Case: 23-1107    Document: 52     Page: 20    Filed: 09/03/2024




 20                  BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC.




    Because we determine the claims of the ’825 patent are
 directed to an abstract idea, we proceed to Alice step two.
                      ii. Alice Step Two
     The district court determined nothing transforms the
 claims into something other than the abstract idea itself.
 Broadband, 

, at *13–15. BBiTV argues
 that the claims include three elements that transform the
 claims into something significantly more than the abstract
 idea itself: generating displays where categories are ar-
 ranged based on relevance; identifying a viewer using a log-
 in step; and creating new categories to encompass highly
 relevant content. BBiTV’s third argument relies exclu-
 sively on claim 15, as only claim 15 requires “generating an
 additional category” of programs based on viewing history.
 ’825 patent, claim 15. We are not persuaded.
    The district court correctly determined that the ’825 pa-
 tent claims are not transformed into something “signifi-
 cantly more” than the abstract idea itself. As with the ’026
 patent family, the district court thoroughly examined the
 intrinsic record, including both the claims and the specifi-
 cation of the ’825 patent. Broadband, 

,
 at *13–15. The district court largely based its step two
 analysis on the intrinsic record, and we again agree with
 the district court’s interpretation of the intrinsic record.
     BBiTV argues that generating displays where catego-
 ries are arranged based on relevance transforms the
 claims. As with its argument at Alice step two for the ’026
 patent family, BBiTV fails to show transformative ele-
 ments that recite something more than the abstract idea
 itself. See BSG Tech LLC, 

. Generating
 displays that are arranged based on relevance is a restate-
 ment of the abstract idea of collecting and using viewing
 history data to recommend categories of content. Even if
 the recommended categories are “new,” as only claim 15 re-
 quires, that requirement is a feature of the abstract idea of
 recommending categories and does not sufficiently
Case: 23-1107    Document: 52     Page: 21    Filed: 09/03/2024




 BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC.                   21



 transform the claims. Further, the idea of creating catego-
 ries is a longstanding human practice that does not trans-
 form the claims, especially given that claim 15 does not
 include any requirements for how the desired result is
 achieved. See Intell. Ventures I LLC, 

;
 Elec. Power Grp., LLC, 

.
     The log-in step also fails to transform the claims. The
 district court correctly determined that there is no genuine
 dispute of material fact that the log-in step is anything
 other than well-understood, routine, and conventional.
 The patent does not claim any specific method of logging
 in, but rather, requires that each viewer can access their
 individualized program guide “through a Log-In step.” ’825
 patent, claim 1. The patent’s specification similarly does
 not claim to improve log-in technology or provide an inno-
 vative method of logging in, but instead merely discusses
 logging in as a way to identify a user and carry out the ab-
 stract idea of providing a targeted program guide. 

 at 3:28–35. Adding a generic log-in step to achieve the ab-
 stract idea of recommending content based on a user’s
 viewing history does not sufficiently transform the abstract
 idea.
     Because we determine the claims of the ’825 patent do
 not include “significantly more” than the abstract idea it-
 self, we find that the claims are patent ineligible under
 § 101.
                        CONCLUSION
     We have considered BBiTV’s other arguments and find
 them unpersuasive. For the above reasons, we hold that
 the asserted claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject
 matter and are not sufficiently transformed into something
 other than the abstract idea itself and therefore are ren-
 dered as non-patent eligible subject matter. We thus af-
 firm the district court’s grant of summary judgment based
 on subject matter ineligibility under § 101.
Case: 23-1107   Document: 52    Page: 22    Filed: 09/03/2024




 22                 BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC.




                      AFFIRMED
                          COSTS
 Costs to Amazon.