IP owners often play the game of “patent what you can, threaten with the rest.” So you might not be able to strictly patent the way data is laid out, but specific, novel algorithms that update or manipulate that layout and improve what was possible before? Those can be understood as key steps of an “innovative process”—and courts have been willing to uphold process claims, especially when tied to what they understand are genuine technical improvements. Fighting even a marginal patent usually means a long, expensive slog with plenty of downside risk.

IANAL nor a patent judge, but this is my understanding after watching the space for some years.

At least this is how it works in the US. And in the US algorithms are (unfortunately) patentable. That is not the case in all countries.