1. “Whether the decision to affirm § 101 ineligibility conflicts with this Court’s and the Supreme Court’s precedents holding that claims directed to improved processes, here specific technological improvements to the functioning of devices, are patent-eligible.”
2. “Whether a panel may affirm summary judgment that contravenes the principle of party presentation, here an affirmance of patent ineligibility where the district court, not the parties, identified five pieces of prior art never argued by the movant and concluded that claim elements and ordered combinations were ‘well-understood, routine, and conventional.’”
