Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.

Courts assess whether patent claims are patenteligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 using the two-step test articulated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). At Alice Step 1, courts ask whether claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea. If so, courts consider at Step 2 whether the claims recite additional elements sufficient to transform the claims into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. At Alice Step 2, courts look to whether additional claim elements involve more than performance of “ ‘ wellunderstood, routine, [or] conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” 573 U.S. at 225. Whether claim elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional is a “question of fact.” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 911 (2020). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) prohibits summary judgment where there is a “genuine dispute as to any material fact.” Here, the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of patent ineligibility under § 101 despite a genuine factual dispute over whether claim elements were well-understood, routine, or conventional. This petition presents the same issue as Question 1 of the pending petition in Island Intellectual Property LLC v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., No. 24-461, and should be held for that petition. The question presented is: Whether there is a patent-specific exception to Rule 56, such that courts may grant summary judgment of patent ineligibility despite genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether claim elements are wellunderstood, routine, or conventional at Alice Step 2. (i)