"There were a number of strong indicators prior to the filing of the suit at issue that the asserted claims were invalid under § 101. First, the Supreme Court decided Alice . . . Second, the PTO determined claims in two of the three related applications were patentably indistinct from independent claims of the ’317 patent . . . and rejected claims in all three related applications under § 101 post-Alice . . . Third, and again post-Alice, the court in Fusion Skill held claims of the related ’315 patent ineligible under § 101. In such circumstances, it does not suffice for Epic Tech or its counsel to rely only on the presumption of validity when faced with multiple indicators that these claims were unpatentable under § 101 . . . The court failed to address whether Alice put Epic Tech on notice of its asserted claims’ potential invalidity . . . The court also failed to adequately address whether the PTO’s office actions served as notice of potential invalidity . . . The court’s analysis regarding the Fusion Skill holding likewise fails to provide reviewable reasoning for the court’s decision."

"In SRI International, we held claims non-abstract that were directed to a “specific technique” for “using a plurality of network monitors that each analyze specific types of data on the network and integrating reports from the monitors” to solve the “technological problem” of “identifying hackers or potential intruders into the network” . . . In Finjan, we held that, although scanning for computer viruses by itself is an abstract idea, the claims were nonetheless non-abstract because they included limitations corresponding to a “behavior-based” approach to virus scanning which “constitutes an improvement in computer functionality” . . . And in McRO, we held claims focused on an improvement in computer animation non-abstract for setting forth specific rules for, e.g., “evaluat[ing] sub-sequences, generat[ing] transition parameters or apply[ing] transition parameters to create a final morph weight set” . . . Ultimately, our determinations in those cases rested on the recitation of specific solutions for solving technological problems in the respective claims. We cannot say the same is true here.

As the district court determined, nothing in the claims or specification indicates any specific technological improvements or solutions to an internet-centric problem in advertising. Instead, the Asserted Patents are directed to combining two methods of conventional targeted internet advertising, i.e., using either page context or user browsing history to select advertisements . . . And the performance score concept is directed to the non-technological problem of selecting the highest revenue generating advertisement." (my emphasis)

"[a] claimed unconventional combination [that] improves the functioning and operation of the computer itself by performing parallel computations in a faster amount of time."

". . . that its construction of “independently calculate,” which was originally proffered by Berkeley, did not require parallel processing of calculations but would allow for sequential calculations or no calculations at all . . . (“[A]lthough the patented invention describes performing the independent calculations simultaneously in an embodiment, there is no necessity to do so, and no such limitation is recited. The claims intentionally provide direction to perform the independent calculations simultaneously, sequentially, or if necessary, not perform some of them at all.")."

"[T]he district court determined that claim 1 of the ’521 patent is directed to an abstract idea of “calculating profitability” . . . We agree . . . This claim is directed to the idea of performing mathematical calculations to determine profitability using a computer to do so. The idea of performing calculations based on “abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more,” is an abstract idea."

"Here, the parties and the district court agree that the alleged inventive concept of parallel processing is not required by the claim such that a system that does not perform calculations in parallel could still fall within the scope of the claim . . . Thus, it was legal error for the district court to nonetheless conclude that parallel processing supplied the inventive concept for claim 1 of the ’521 patent."

"[T]he district court made two relevant findings: (1) plaintiffs pursued objectively baseless infringement positions as to each patent, and (2) plaintiffs litigated in an unreasonable manner" - CAFC affirms as to (1) so doesn't address (2) - "Claim 12 requires “growing single-crystal diamond . . . on the growth surface . . . [t]he district court thus concluded that plaintiffs “put forth no evidence whatsoever that contradicted [the images from Nouveau] or otherwise demonstrated infringement." )

"Nine neither changed its position on this issue between the trial and appellate levels nor forfeited its argument that “internal diameter” is a measured diameter . . . the intrinsic evidence does not clearly require “internal diameter” to have two different meanings . . . Because the intrinsic record was not clear that “internal diameter” should carry different meanings in different portions of the claims of the ’445 patent, the district court erred by holding that the term “can refer to both an inner surface and a measured diameter” . . . Instead, we conclude that the plain meaning of “internal diameter” is a “measured diameter” across the width of the casing string."

"Nine proposes the same construction here as it did to the district court . . . Because the issue was fully litigated at the district court, Nine has preserved its challenge to the district court’s construction on appeal . . . On the merits, nothing in the intrinsic record requires a size limitation on casing string . . . NCS argues that the extrinsic evidence demonstrates that persons of ordinary skill in the art would understand “casing string” to have a size of ≥ 4.5 inches in diameter, “because wellbores that are lined with casing string have a standard size, and tubing tools for completing well operations have to fit inside of the casing string so they can be run downhole” . . . NCS primarily relies on industry catalogs . . . The problem with NCS’s position is that, even if those catalogs were evidence of definitional plain meaning rather than mere commonality, any such definition is explicitly contradicted by the specification."

"[In Sanho] Prior to the filing date, the inventor testified that he “sent to Sanho via private courier a finished version of the [HyperDrive]” and alleged a prior public disclosure . . . Although there was no confidentiality or nondisclosure agreement, there was no teaching of the features of the invention to others beyond Sanho . . . On these facts, we [did] not think it [was] a close question . . . . [T]he sale of the HyperDrive here did not publicly disclose the subject matter[.]" . . . In Sanho, we did “not decide exactly what is necessary for demonstrating that a sale publicly disclosed the relevant subject matter, or whether to apply the prevailing standard for when a printed publication is sufficiently publicly accessible to qualify as prior art.”

"As in Sanho, there is no evidence that AirLocks were widely distributed or placed where the public could examine them. Instead, NCS’s CEO testified that, even when sold to Tundra, the AirLock was delivered in a sealed black tube that would have to be cut open . . . NCS has not identified any record evidence that, for example, the public would be able to understand from the black tube that there was a “rupture disc [ ] configured to disengage from sealing engagement when exposed to a pressure greater than a hydraulic pressure in the casing string after the casing string has been positioned in the wellbore and the region of the tubular member where the rupture disc is attached has a larger internal diameter than the internal diameter of the casing string” . . . Thus, as in Sanho, while there was no non-disclosure agreement, there was no teaching."