1. “Is a claimed process using generic computer hardware and software patent eligible under Alice Step One if it is ‘directed to an improvement of an existing technology’, Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1337, as distinguished from improving ‘computer functionality’, Aatrix, 890 F.3d at 1357?” 2. “Can claimed inventions be proven patent-ineligible under Alice Step Two by clear and convincing evidence if the challenger has presented no accepted facts for ineligibility and the patentee has presented accepted facts for eligibility from: (i) the patent specification, the prosecution history, and the prior art; (ii) the claims; (iii) descriptions of existing technologies; (iv) industry praise of the claimed invention; (v) testimony from two skilled artisans; and (vi) admissions of the challenger?” 3. “May a district court assert factual evidence outside the record without giving the patentee notice or opportunity to rebut the evidence, and rely primarily on this evidence for summary judgment of patent ineligibility under Alice?”
