1. “Whether the district court erred by finding the ’993 patent, ’854 patent, and ’356 patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” 2. “Whether the district court erred in its construction of claim terms, including in ruling claim 98 of the ’854 patent to be indefinite.” 3. “Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Oath and partial summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Google.”
“[W]e conclude that the asserted claims of the ’843 patent, like those of the ’356, ’854, and ’993 patents, do not recite an inventive concept and are patent ineligible under § 101.”
“Because we conclude that the asserted claims of the ’356, ’854, ’993, and ’843 patents are patent ineligible under § 101, we need not reach the parties’ remaining arguments regarding infringement, claim construction, anticipation, or obviousness.”
