1. “Did the district court err in concluding that all seven asserted patents in three distinct patent families comprising 211 total claims, each of which discloses discrete methods and systems for digital data compression aimed at solving known problems in conventional data compression systems, are directed to an abstract idea?”
2. “Did the district court err in concluding, without considering the claim elements as an ordered combination, that all 211 patent claims lack inventive concept, simply because some of the individual claim limitations utilize generic computer components?”
3. “Did the district court err in disregarding the patents’ claimed advances and resolving disputed issues of fact to hold that the patents claim ineligible subject matter, despite the statements in the patent specifications and Realtime’s detailed factual allegations in the amended complaints demonstrating that the disclosed methods of digital data compression were not well-understood, routine, or conventional?”
