If a patentee makes factual assertions and provides supporting evidence that its claimed invention is directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, is a court permitted to overlook the patentee's assertions and evidence, provide no opportunity for a hearing, ignore the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, find that the claimed invention is directed to patentineligible subject matter, and dismiss the patentee's complaint with prejudice despite the requirements of Rule 12(b)(6) and the statutory presumption of § 282(a)?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. If a patentee makes factual assertions and provides supporting evidence that its claimed invention is directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, is a court permitted to overlook the patentee’s assertions and evidence, provide no opportunity for a hearing, ignore the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, find that the claimed invention is directed to patentineligible subject matter, and dismiss the patentee’s complaint with prejudice despite the requirements of Rule 12(b)(6) and the statutory presumption of § 282(a)? 2. Whether 35 U.S.C. § 101 requires a patent specification to explain the technological processes underlying the purported technological improvement in a patent claim, or if this encroaches on the enablement test under 35 U.S.C. § 112?