Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC

United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

______________________

TWO-WAY MEDIA LTD.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,

COMCAST INTERACTIVE MEDIA LLC, VERIZON

SERVICES CORP., VERIZON ONLINE LLC,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________

2016-2531, 2016-2532

______________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the

District of Delaware in Nos. 1:14-cv-01006-RGA, 1:14-cv-

01212-RGA, Judge Richard G. Andrews.

______________________

Decided: November 1, 2017

______________________

MICHAEL F. HEIM, Heim, Payne & Chorush, LLP,

Houston, TX, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also repre-

sented by ROBERT ALLAN BULLWINKEL, MICAH JOHN

HOWE, LESLIE PAYNE; PARKER C. FOLSE, III, RACHEL S.

BLACK, JENNA FARLEIGH, Susman Godfrey LLP, Seattle,

WA; SHAWN DANIEL BLACKBURN, JOSEPH SAMUEL

GRINSTEIN, Houston, TX.

BRIAN LEE FERRALL, Keker & Van Nest, LLP, San

Francisco, CA, argued for all defendants-appellees.

2 TWO-WAY MEDIA LTD. v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS

Defendants-appellees Comcast Cable Communications,

LLC, Comcast Interactive Media LLC also represented by

DANIEL E. JACKSON, LEO L. LAM, DAVID JUSTIN ROSEN.

THOMAS M. DUNHAM, Winston & Strawn LLP, Wash-

ington, DC, for defendants-appellees Verizon Services

Corp., Verizon Online LLC. Also represented by SARAH J.

KALEMERIS, KURT A MATHAS, Chicago, IL; ANUP MISRA,

New York, NY.

______________________

Before LOURIE, REYNA, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

REYNA, Circuit Judge.

Two-Way Media Ltd. appeals from a decision of the

United States District Court for the District of Delaware

that found the claims of the asserted patents to be di-

rected to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C.

§ 101. Because the claims are directed to abstract ideas

and contain no additional elements that transform the

nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application of

the abstract ideas, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

A. Technical Background

The patents-in-suit are related as a series of continua-

tion applications, and thus share substantially the same

specification. U.S. Patent No. 5,778,187 (“’187 patent”)

issued first, followed by U.S. Patent Nos. 5,983,005 (“’005

patent”), then 6,119,163 (not at issue here), then

6,434,622 (“’622 patent”), and then 7,266,686 (“’686 pa-

tent”). The patents are entitled “Multicasting Method

and Apparatus,” and generally relate to a system for

streaming audio/visual data over a communications

system like the internet. Claim 1 of the ’187 patent is

representative of all claims of the ’187 patent and ’005

patent, claims 1 and 29 of the ’622 patent, and claims 1,

TWO-WAY MEDIA LTD. v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS 3

22, 26, and 30 of the ’686 patent are representative of

their respective patents.

The patents explain that internet systems typically

operate on a point-to-point, or unicast, basis. In unicast

systems, a message is converted into a series of addressed

packets which are routed from a source node to a destina-

tion node. But these unicast systems lack the capability

to broadcast a message from a source node to all the other

recipients in a network, as this type of operation could

easily overload the network.

IP Multicasting, in contrast, provides a way to trans-

mit one packet of information to multiple recipients. In

such a system, packets destined for several recipients are

encapsulated in a unicast packet and forwarded from a

source to a point in a network where the packets are

replicated and forwarded on to all desired recipients. A

multicast packet can be routed from a source node

through a plurality of multicast routers to one or more

devices receiving the multicast packets. The packet can

then be distributed to all the host computers that are

members of the multicast group. The patents explain

that this technology had previously been used to provide

internet-based audio/visual conferencing servicing as well

as radio-like broadcasts to interested parties.

The patents describe the invention as an improved

scalable architecture for delivering real-time information.

Embedded in the architecture is a control mechanism that

provides for the management and administration of users

who are to receive real-time information. Figure 1 pro-

vides a schematic diagram depicting an overview of the

system:

4 TWO-WAY MEDIA LTD. v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS

J.A. 80. In this system, the Primary Servers and Media

Servers are interconnected by the internet. The Control

Servers connect users with Media Servers using a series

of message exchanges. The patents also describe monitor-

ing network conditions and generating records about the

real-time streams.

TWO-WAY MEDIA LTD. v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS 5

The parties agree that claim 1 of the ’187 patent is

representative of the claims of the ’187 patent and ’005

patent. It recites:

1. A method for transmitting message packets

over a communications network comprising the

steps of:

converting a plurality of streams of audio and/or

visual information into a plurality of streams of

addressed digital packets complying with the

specifications of a network communication proto-

col,

for each stream, routing such stream to one or

more users,

controlling the routing of the stream of packets in

response to selection signals received from the us-

ers, and

monitoring the reception of packets by the users

and accumulating records that indicate which

streams of packets were received by which users,

wherein at least one stream of packets comprises

an audio and/or visual selection and the records

that are accumulated indicate the time that a user

starts receiving the audio and/or visual selection

and the time that the user stops receiving the au-

dio and/or visual selection.

J.A. 111 at col. 18 ll. 17–34; J.A. 114 (certificate of correc-

tion). Two-Way Media asserts that the claims of the ’622

patent are directed to the features described in the speci-

fication, but are claimed more broadly. For example,

claim 29 recites:

29. A method for forwarding real-time information

to one or more users having access to a communi-

cations network comprising:

6 TWO-WAY MEDIA LTD. v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS

processing one or more streams of audio or visual

information into one or more streams of packets

for forwarding over the communications network,

wherein at least one stream of packets comprises

audio or video information,

forwarding the digital packets to the users in re-

sponse to information selection signals received

from the users,

verifying the operational status of the users’ ac-

cess to the communications network during deliv-

ery of the real-time information, and

updating a database with indications of: (i) which

streams of packets were received by which users,

(ii) the time when delivery of each stream to each

user commenced, and (iii) the time when delivery

of each stream to each user terminated.

J.A. 202 at col. 20 ll. 19–36. Claim 30 of the ’686 patent

includes certain “commercial purposes” and recites:

30. A method for metering real-time streaming

media for commercial purposes, said method com-

prising:

selecting an intermediate server from multiple in-

termediate servers;

forwarding at least one copy of a real-time media

stream from said intermediate server toward a

user device;

detecting a termination of said forwarding;

after said termination, determining an extent of

said real-time media stream forwarded toward

said user device; and

logging said extent for commercial purposes.

TWO-WAY MEDIA LTD. v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS 7

J.A. 248 at col. 20 ll. 6–16; J.A. 251 (certificate of correc-

tion).

B. District Court Decision

The district court granted Appellees’ 1 motion for

judgment on the pleadings and held that the ’187 patent,

’005 patent, ’622 patent, and ’686 patent were ineligible

under § 101. Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable

Commc’ns, LLC, Nos. 14-1006-RGA, 14-1212-RGA, 2016

WL 4373698 (D. Del. Aug. 15, 2016). The district court

first addressed claim construction, then addressed eviden-

tiary arguments, and finally addressed the patents’

eligibility under the two-step framework espoused in Alice

Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).

Two-Way Media argued before the district court that

Appellees’ motion was premature because claim construc-

tion was necessary to evaluate whether the representative

claims were eligible under § 101. Two-Way Media provid-

ed proposed claim constructions for certain terms of the

asserted patents. J.A. 599–602. Appellees agreed that

the district court should adopt Two-Way Media’s claim

constructions, but argued that the constructions did not

alter the § 101 analysis. The district court ultimately

adopted Two-Way Media’s proposed constructions for the

purposes of the motion. Two-Way Media, 2016 WL

4373698, at *3.

Two-Way Media also argued that the district court

should take judicial notice of certain materials from prior

proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

and other federal courts. Id. at *3–4. The materials,

consisting of expert report excerpts, expert trial testimo-

ny, inventor trial testimony, and a press release, [BB45;

1 Appellees are Comcast Cable Communications,

LLC, Comcast Interactive Media LLC, Verizon Services

Corp., and Verizon Online LLC.

8 TWO-WAY MEDIA LTD. v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS

RB31] purportedly related to other tribunals’ evaluation

of the novelty and nonobviousness of the claimed inven-

tions. Id. The district court denied the request, reasoning

that the proffered materials were irrelevant to a § 101

inquiry: “The novelty and nonobviousness of the claims

under [35 U.S.C.] §§ 102 and 103 does not bear on wheth-

er the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter

under § 101.” Id. at *4.

The district court then addressed the eligibility of the

claims of the ’187 patent and ’005 patent and determined

that the claims were directed to an abstract idea:

The ’187 and ’005 patents are directed to the ab-

stract idea of (1) sending information, (2) directing

the sent information, (3) monitoring receipt of the

sent information, and (4) accumulating records

about receipt of the sent information. The claims

are thus directed to methods of sending and moni-

toring the delivery of audio/visual information.

Id. at *5 (citations omitted). The district court deter-

mined that the claims did not recite a saving inventive

concept under Alice step two. Although Two-Way Media

had argued that the claims were directed to computer

architecture that solved the technical problems of load,

bottlenecking, and inadequate records, the district court

disagreed, holding that “[n]one of the claims, however,

recite or refer to anything that could be described as an

architecture.” Id. The district court expressly considered

Two-Way Media’s proffered claim constructions when

making this determination: “The claims cannot fairly be

read to recite computer architecture even in light of [Two-

Way Media’s] proposed claim constructions, some of which

explicitly incorporate the words ‘intermediate comput-

ers.’” Id. at *5 n.3 (citations omitted).

Having concluded that the claims of the ’187 patent

and the ’005 patent were patent ineligible under § 101,

the district court next addressed the ’622 patent and ’686

TWO-WAY MEDIA LTD. v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS 9

patent. The district court determined that the ’622 patent

was directed to the abstract idea of monitoring the deliv-

ery of real-time information to a user or users, and the

’686 patent was directed to the abstract idea of measuring

the delivery of real-time information for commercial

purposes. Id. at *6–7. The claims contained no saving

inventive concept because although they recited some

computer components, they required only ordinary func-

tionality of these components. Id. at *6–8.

Two-Way Media appealed. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review procedural aspects of the grant of judg-

ment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Proce-

dure 12(c) based on the law of the regional circuit, in this

case the Third Circuit. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco

Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

The Third Circuit exercises plenary review of Rule 12(c)

motions. E.g., CoreStates Bank, N.A. v. Huls Am., Inc.,

176 F.3d 187, 193 (3d Cir. 1999). We also review de novo

whether a claim is invalid under the judicially created

exceptions to § 101. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1311.

DISCUSSION

Section 101 of the Patent Act defines patent eligible

subject matter:

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful

process, machine, manufacture, or composition of

matter, or any new and useful improvement

thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to

the conditions and requirements of this title.

35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has long held that

there are certain judicial exceptions to this provision:

laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.

Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (collecting cases).

10 TWO-WAY MEDIA LTD. v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS

In Alice, the Court supplied a two-step framework for

analyzing whether claims are patent eligible. First, we

determine whether the representative claims are “di-

rected to” a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea.

Id. at 2355. If the claims are directed to eligible subject

matter, the inquiry ends. Thales Visionix Inc. v. United

States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Enfish, LLC

v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

If the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract

idea, we next consider whether the claims contain an

“inventive concept” sufficient to “transform the nature of

the claim into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S.

Ct. at 2355 (internal quotation marks omitted).

We conclude that the ’187 patent, ’005 patent, ’622 pa-

tent, and ’686 patent are patent ineligible under § 101.

We discuss each in turn.

A. ’187 Patent and ’005 Patent

1. Alice Step One

Under Alice step one, “the claims are considered in

their entirety to ascertain whether their character as a

whole is directed to excluded subject matter.” Internet

Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346

(Fed. Cir. 2015). We look to whether the claims in the

patent focus on a specific means or method, or are instead

directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea

and merely invokes generic processes and machinery.

McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314. Claims directed to generalized

steps to be performed on a computer using conventional

computer activity are not patent eligible. Internet Pa-

tents, 790 F.3d at 1348–49.

The district court found that claim 1 of the ’187 pa-

tent, which is representative of all of the claims of the

’187 patent and ’005 patent, is directed to the abstract

idea of (1) sending information, (2) directing the sent

information, (3) monitoring the receipt of the sent infor-

TWO-WAY MEDIA LTD. v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS 11

mation, and (4) accumulating records about receipt of the

sent information. Two-Way Media, 2016 WL 4373698, at

*5. Two-Way Media argues that the district court erred

by oversimplifying the claim and ignoring claim limita-

tions present in its proposed constructions. We disagree.

Claim 1 recites a method for routing information us-

ing result-based functional language. The claim requires

the functional results of “converting,” “routing,” “control-

ling,” “monitoring,” and “accumulating records,” but does

not sufficiently describe how to achieve these results in a

non-abstract way. Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v.

DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258–59 (Fed. Cir. 2016)

(holding that claims were directed to an abstract idea

where they claimed “the function of wirelessly communi-

cating regional broadcast content to an out-of-region

recipient, not a particular way of performing that func-

tion”). Claim 1 is similar to other claims found to be

directed to an abstract idea. In Electric Power Group,

LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2016),

the challenged claims were directed to systems and meth-

ods for achieving real-time performance monitoring of an

electric power grid. We held that the challenged claims

were directed to the abstract idea of “gathering and

analyzing information of a specified content, then display-

ing the results, and not any particular assertedly in-

ventive technology for performing those functions.” Id. at

1354. In the same way, claim 1 manipulates data but

fails to do so in a non-abstract way.

Two-Way Media’s proposed constructions do not

change this outcome. Though Two-Way Media argues

that its proposed claim constructions sufficiently tie the

claims to particular scalable network architecture, the

constructions recite only conventional computer compo-

nents. For example, Two-Way Media proposed a con-

struction of “controlling the routing of the stream of

packets in response to selection signals received from the

users” as “directing a portion of the routing path taken by

12 TWO-WAY MEDIA LTD. v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS

the stream of packets from one of a designated group of

intermediate computers to the user in response to one or

more signals from the user selecting the stream.”

J.A. 600. This construction fails to indicate how the

claims are directed to a scalable network architecture

that itself leads to an improvement in the functioning of

the system. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1338. Nor does the

construction provide any parameters for the “signals”

purportedly dictating how the information is being routed.

At best, the constructions propose the use of generic

computer components to carry out the recited abstract

idea, but that is not sufficient. In re TLI Commc’ns LLC

Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding

that, despite reciting “concrete, tangible components,” the

claims were directed to an abstract idea where “the physi-

cal components merely provide[d] a generic environment

in which to carry out the abstract idea”). The claim is

therefore directed to an abstract idea.

Because the claim is directed to an abstract idea, we

proceed to Alice step two to determine whether the repre-

sentative claims disclose a saving inventive concept.

2. Alice Step Two

In Alice step two, we consider the elements of the

claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, to

assess whether the additional elements transform the

nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application of

the abstract idea. Content Extraction & Transmission

LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir.

2014). Merely reciting the use of a generic computer or

adding the words “apply it with a computer” cannot

convert a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-

eligible invention. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Versata Dev.

Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1332 (Fed. Cir.

2015). To save a patent at step two, an inventive concept

must be evident in the claims. RecogniCorp, LLC v.

Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017).

TWO-WAY MEDIA LTD. v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS 13

The district court found no saving inventive concept in

claim 1 of the ’187 patent. While acknowledging that the

specification of the ’187 patent describes a system archi-

tecture as a technological innovation, the district court

concluded that the claim does not recite this architecture,

even taking into account Two-Way Media’s proposed

constructions. Two-Way Media, 2016 WL 4373698, at *5.

We agree with the district court. The main problem that

Two-Way Media cannot overcome is that the claim—as

opposed to something purportedly described in the specifi-

cation—is missing an inventive concept. RecogniCorp,

855 F.3d at 1327. While the specification may describe a

purported innovative “scalable architecture,” claim 1 of

the ’187 patent does not. J.A. 103 at col. 2 ll. 1–5.

The lack of an inventive concept recited in claim 1

precludes eligibility here. For example, the claim refers

to certain data “complying with the specifications of a

network communication protocol” and the data being

routed in response to one or more signals from a user,

without specifying the rules forming the communication

protocol or specifying parameters for the user signals.

Neither the protocol nor the selection signals are claimed,

precluding their contribution to the inventive concept

determination. See Clarilogic, Inc. v. FormFree Holdings

Corp., 681 F. App’x 950, 954–55 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding

claim ineligible where it recited an “unknown and un-

claimed process” to allegedly transform data).

Two-Way Media asserts that the claim solves various

technical problems, including excessive loads on a source

server, network congestion, unwelcome variations in

delivery times, scalability of networks, and lack of precise

recordkeeping. But claim 1 here only uses generic func-

tional language to achieve these purported solutions.

“Inquiry therefore must turn to any requirements for how

the desired result is achieved.” Elec. Power Grp., 830

F.3d at 1355. Nothing in the claims or their construc-

tions, including the use of “intermediate computers,”

14 TWO-WAY MEDIA LTD. v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS

requires anything other than conventional computer and

network components operating according to their ordinary

functions. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,

838 F.3d 1307, 1319–21 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding ineligi-

ble a claim directed to a method of virus screening even

where the method required use of an “intermediary com-

puter in forwarding information”).

We likewise see no inventive concept in the ordered

combination of these limitations. BASCOM Glob. Internet

Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350

(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A]n inventive concept can be found in

the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of

known, conventional pieces.”). The claim uses a conven-

tional ordering of steps—first processing the data, then

routing it, controlling it, and monitoring its reception—

with conventional technology to achieve its desired result.

As the court in BASCOM noted, merely reciting an ab-

stract idea performed on a set of generic computer compo-

nents, as claim 1 does here, would “not contain an

inventive concept.” Id. (citing CyberSource Corp. v. Retail

Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). We

thus find that claim 1 here fails to transform the abstract

idea into something more. Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at

1355–56.

Two-Way Media argues that the claims of the ’187

and ’005 patents are not preemptive, and therefore are

patent eligible, because many methods of sending and

monitoring the delivery of audio/visual remain available.

However, where a patent’s claims are deemed only to

disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Alice

framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns

are fully addressed and made moot. Ariosa Diagnostics,

Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir.

2015).

Finally, Two-Way Media argues that the district court

erred by excluding its proffered evidence from prior cases

TWO-WAY MEDIA LTD. v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS 15

relating to the purported technological innovations of its

invention. We find no error in the district court’s deter-

mination to reject Two-Way Media’s proffered material, as

the court correctly concluded that the material was rele-

vant to a novelty and obviousness analysis, and not

whether the claims were directed to eligible subject mat-

ter. Eligibility and novelty are separate inquiries. Affini-

ty Labs, 838 F.3d at 1263) (holding that “even assuming”

that a particular claimed feature was novel does not

“avoid the problem of abstractness”). Accordingly, the

district court correctly determined that the patents were

ineligible under § 101 on the basis of the representative

claims and Two-Way Media’s proposed constructions,

which the district court expressly adopted.

B. ’622 Patent and ’686 Patent

1. Alice Step One

The district court also concluded that the ’622 patent

was directed to the abstract idea of monitoring the deliv-

ery of real-time information to a user or users, and the

’686 patent was directed to the abstract idea of measuring

the delivery of real-time information for commercial

purposes. Two-Way Media, 2016 WL 4373698, at *6–7.

Two-Way Media argues that the district court erred by

oversimplifying the claims down to merely their preamble

and failing to recognize the claims solve technical prob-

lems. We disagree.

First, we see no error here in the district court citing

to the preamble in its review of whether the claims are

directed to an abstract idea. See, e.g., BASCOM, 827 F.3d

at 1348 (citing preamble for distillation of abstract idea).

The district court’s inquiry centered on determining the

“focus” of the claims, and was thus in accord with our

precedent. E.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353.

Second, these claims suffer from the same ineligibility

infirmity as claim 1 of the ’187 patent. Two-Way Media

16 TWO-WAY MEDIA LTD. v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS

admits that the representative claims of the ’622 patent

and ’686 patent are broader in several respects than claim

1 of the ’187 patent. Appellant Br. 46, 53. We agree with

the district court that the claims here—directed to moni-

toring the delivery of real-time information to user(s) or

measuring such delivery for commercial purposes—are

similar to other concepts found to be abstract. BASCOM,

827 F.3d at 1348 (filtering content is an abstract idea);

Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1351–53 (collecting infor-

mation, analyzing it, and displaying results is an abstract

idea, even when undertaken in “real-time”); Ultramercial,

Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

(using advertising as an exchange or currency is an

abstract idea). For these reasons, we conclude that the

representative claims of the ’622 patent and ’686 patent

are directed to abstract ideas. Accordingly, we proceed to

Alice step two.

2. Alice Step Two

The district court found that that the claims of the

’622 patent and ’686 patent did not contain an inventive

concept under Alice step two. Two-Way Media, 2016 WL

4373698, at *6–8. Two-Way Media argues that the dis-

trict court erred by failing to account for a central aspect

of Two-Way Media’s invention, the system architecture,

and failing to credit Two-Way Media’s nonconventional

arrangement of components. We disagree.

As with claim 1 of the ’187 patent, the problem is that

no inventive concept resides in the claims. Claim 29 of

the ’622 patent requires processing data streams, trans-

mitting them from “an intermediate computer,” and then

confirming certain information about the transmitted

data. J.A. 202 at col. 20 ll. 19–36; J.A. 600. Claim 30 of

the ’686 patent requires receiving and transmitting a

real-time media stream from an intermediate server,

detecting the termination of the stream, and recording

certain information about the stream. J.A. 248 at col. 20

TWO-WAY MEDIA LTD. v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS 17

ll. 6–16; J.A. 251; J.A. 601. We agree with the district

court that nothing in these claims requires anything other

than conventional computer and network components

operating according to their ordinary functions. Intellec-

tual Ventures, 838 F.3d at 1319–21; Elec. Power Grp., 830

F.3d at 1355–56.

Nor do we see any inventive concept in the ordered

combination of these steps. The steps are organized in a

completely conventional way—data are first processed,

sent, and once sent, information about the transmission is

recorded. The claims thus fail to describe a “specific,

discrete implementation of the abstract idea” sufficient to

qualify for eligibility under § 101. BASCOM, 827 F.3d at

1350.

CONCLUSION

We have considered Two-Way Media’s other argu-

ments but do not find them persuasive. For the foregoing

reasons, we affirm the district court’s judgment that the

’187 patent, ’005 patent, ’622 patent, and ’686 patent are

ineligible under § 101.

AFFIRMED