“This Court has held that, to find invalidity at Alice step two, the challenger bears the burden of proving—as ‘a question of fact’—that both the claim elements and their ‘ordered combination’ were well-understood, routine, and conventional. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367-68 (Fed. Cir. 2018). ‘[I]n cases where the only issue at step two is whether claim limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional, a genuine dispute over that issue will preclude summary judgment that a claim is ineligible under § 101.’ BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The question presented is:”
“Where the patent challenger submits no evidence at all about the conventionality of the claimed invention as an ordered combination, and the patent owner submits expert evidence that the claimed invention was not conventional, may a court resolve the step-two dispute as a matter of law at summary judgment?”
