Whether patent eligibility is a question of law for the court based on the scope of the claims or a question of fact for the jury based on the state of the art at the time of the patent

QUESTION PRESENTED This Court has adopted a two-step framework for determining whether an invention is eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). Both steps are reserved for the court: First, “we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to [a] patentineligible concep[t].” Second, “we *** determine” whether “additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.” Jd. at 2355 (emphases added). In this case, the Federal Circuit determined at step one that the claims are directed to an ineligible concept (an abstract idea), but at step two the court below refused to determine whether the additional elements of the claim disclose an inventive concept— declaring that the second step of the Alice framework involves a “question of fact” that could not be resolved by a court on a pretrial motion. The question presented is whether patent eligibility is a question of law for the court based on the scope of the claims or a question of fact for the jury based on the state of the art at the time of the patent.