Numerous post- Alice opinions — not to mention Alice itself — have held much more closely analogous patents invalid. See, e.g. , Alice , 573 U.S. at 224–27, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (method of mitigating risk via intermediated settlement); Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc. , 931 F.3d 1161, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (method of crediting a merchant account while electronically processing a check); In re Greenstein , 774 F. App'x 661, 664–65 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (method of allocating returns, using a computer, to different investors in a collective investment vehicle); Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC , 921 F.3d 1084, 1092–96 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (financial trading method used by a computer); In re Villena , 745 F. App'x 374, 376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (method of computerized property valuation); Clarilogic, Inc. v. FormFree Holdings Corp. , 681 F. App'x 950, 953–55 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (method of electronically certifying financial data); Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc. , 680 F. App'x 977, 982–84 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (method of controlling access to data based on payment); In re Chorna , 656 F. App'x 1016, 1019–22 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (hindsight allocation instrument for tracking financial instruments). The determination that the claims here are directed to an abstract idea is thus in harmony with post- Alice case law disfavoring patents that involve only " ‘fundamental economic and conventional business practices,’ [or] the addition of ‘conventional computer components to well-known business practices.’ "