"The district court made several critical errors. First, whereas it had overgeneralized the scope of the claims for the purposes of Alice step one, at step two it improperly changed and narrowed the alleged abstract idea to be effectively coextensive with what is arguably the most inventive concept of the Asserted Claims. Second, it ignored the evidence of an inventive concept as set forth in the specification and embodied in the claims (as confirmed by the reexamination and IPR proceedings) and in the Complaint, and concluded, based on mere attorney argument, and without supporting evidence, that “the ordered combination of the Asserted Claims is logical and conventional.” Appx8. And third, it applied a claim construction for a key claim limitation (“channel”) that differed from the construction ultimately agreed to by the parties.

Case: 18-1470 Document: 17 Page: 53 Filed: 03/26/2018