Innovative-technological-architecture-for-online-media-streaming

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Section 101 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 101, establishes the broad categories of subject matter that are patent-eligible and has been construed to exclude abstract ideas. Section 101 is directed to the patent as a whole and does not impose substantive requirements beyond delineating the patent-eligible subject such as specificity and enablement are dealt with in other provisions of the Patent Act. In this case, the district court and court of appeals agreed that the patents-in-suit are directed to an innovative technological architecture that improves the functionality of online media streaming. But both courts nevertheless concluded that the patents’ claims are directed to an abstract idea—and are therefore ineligible under Section 101—because the asserted claims, read in isolation, do not describe with sufficient specificity how to achieve the innovation. In reaching that conclusion, the courts expressly ignored the detailed description of the inventions in the rest of the specification and refused to consider proffered evidence demonstrating how the inventions solved existing technical problems and added significant innovative concepts to the prior art. The questions presented are: 1. In order to clear the threshold eligibility determination under 35 U.S.C. § 101, must a patent include in its claims a sufficient level of specificity such that the claims, read in isolation, fully describe the nature of the innovation and the means of achieving it? 2. Does a court’s determination that a claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because it is not ll directed to an inventive concept that was previously unknown in the art require resolution of underlying factual questions that, when disputed, cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss?