Whether an ordered combination of elements in a patent claim is 'well-understood, routine and conventional' to a skilled artisan in the relevant field under Alice step two is a question of fact

QUESTION PRESENTED In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l., 134 8. Ct. 2347 (2014), this Court reaffirmed its two-part test for determining whether an invention is patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101: (1) whether the patent claims are directed to a patent ineligible concept, such as laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas, and (2), if so, whether the elements of the claim contain an “inventive concept” that transforms the ineligible concept into an invention that is patent-eligible; that is, whether the claims present “something more” than that which was, at the time of the invention, well-understood, routine and conventional. The proper role of fact-finding with respect to the second part of the Alice test is the subject of a split among the judges of the Federal Circuit, and having a clear standard is of vital importance to all lower courts hearing patent cases, as well as to patent examiners of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and all applicants for letters patent. The question presented is: Is whether an ordered combination of elements in a patent claim is “well-understood, routine and conventional” to a skilled artisan in the relevant field under Alice step two a question of fact?