United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

SHOLEM WEISNER, Plaintiff-Appellant

SHMUEL NEMANOV, Plaintiff

v.

GOOGLE LLC, Defendant-Appellee ______________________

2021-2228 ______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in No. 1:20-cv-02862-AKH, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein. ______________________

Decided: October 13, 2022 ______________________

MATTHEW DE PRETER, Aronberg Goldgehn, Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by JACOB GINSBURG, Jacob Ginsburg, Esq. PLLC, Monsey, NY.

TODD RICHARD GREGORIAN, Fenwick & West LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for defendant-appellee. Also repre- sented by DANIEL LEDESMA, KEVIN MCGANN, OLIVIA LYNN WHEELING, New York, NY; ALLEN W. WANG, Mountain View, CA. Case: 21-2228 Document: 62 Page: 2 Filed: 10/13/2022

2 WEISNER v. GOOGLE LLC

______________________

Before REYNA, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge STOLL. Opinion dissenting in part filed by Circuit Judge HUGHES. STOLL, Circuit Judge. Sholem Weisner appeals from the district court’s dis- missal of his patent infringement suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court held all of the asserted claims ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We af- firm-in-part and reverse-in-part. BACKGROUND I Mr. Weisner—a named inventor of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,380,202, 10,642,910, 10,394,905 and 10,642,911—sued Google LLC for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The four asserted patents are related and share a com- mon specification. 1 The shared specification generally de- scribes ways to “digitally record a person’s physical activities” and ways to use this digital record. ’202 patent, Abstract. Specifically, it describes a way in which individ- uals and businesses can sign up for a system so that they can exchange information, for instance “a URL or an elec- tronic business card.” Id. at col. 3 ll. 30–36. Then, as indi- viduals go about their day, they may encounter people or businesses that they want recorded in their “leg history,” which records the URLs or business cards along with the time and place of the encounters. Id. at col. 3 l. 48–col. 4

1 Because the specifications are identical, we refer only to the ’202 patent specification unless otherwise spec- ified. Case: 21-2228 Document: 62 Page: 3 Filed: 10/13/2022

WEISNER v. GOOGLE LLC 3

l. 23; see also id. at Fig. 8. The specification describes a “leg history” as “the accumulation of a digital record of a per- son’s physical presence across time.” Id. at col. 1 ll. 6–10. Individuals record entries in their travel history either by accepting a proposal from another person/business (e.g., by “push[ing] a button”), or by unilaterally making an en- try (e.g., by “tak[ing] a snapshot with a digital camera . . . and upload[ing] it to [their] databank”). Id. at col. 3 l. 48–col. 4 l. 11. These methods are illustrated in Figure 3 (showing a user accepting a proposed entry by “Macy’s”) and Figure 4 (showing a user unilaterally making an entry at “Benson’s” by taking a photograph): Case: 21-2228 Document: 62 Page: 4 Filed: 10/13/2022

4 WEISNER v. GOOGLE LLC

Id. at Figs. 3–4; see also id. at col. 11 l. 20–col. 13 l. 18. The specification also describes using this