In accordance with those precedents, we conclude that claim 1 of the ’941 patent is not directed to an abstract idea. Improving security—here, against a computer’s unauthorized use of a program—can be a non-abstract computer-functionality improvement if done by a specific technique that departs from earlier approaches to solve a specific computer problem. See Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1304–05. The claimed method here specifically identifies how that functionality improvement is effectuated in an as-sertedly unexpected way: a structure containing a license record is stored in a particular, modifiable, non-volatile ....... etc....


HTC does not dispute that all claims pass muster if claim 1 does. Accordingly, we hold that HTC has not shown the ’941 patent’s claims to be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We do not have before us any question about invalidity under other provisions of Title 35.IIIFor the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the case. Costs to Ancora. REVERSED AND REMANDED