directed to abstract ideas: a self-referential database table that improved upon conventional database structures, allowing more efficient launching and adaptation of databases, Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-39; an improved computer memory system with programmable operational characteristics that provided flexibility prior art processors did not possess and obviated the need to design a separate memory system for each type of processor, Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1259- 60 (Fed. Cir. 2017); a display interface allowing users to more quickly access stored data and programs in small-screen electronics, Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2018); and, most relevant here, a communication system allowing inquiry message sending and polling to occur simultaneously, thereby reducing the delay necessary to activate a secondary station, Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., 957 F.3d 1303, 1308-09 (Fed. Cir. 2020).

In particular, the Asserted Claims do not purport to simply take a known mathematical formula that was previously done by pencil and paper and introduce a computer as a tool.Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., 957 F.3d 1303, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Contrarily, the Asserted Claims are a method for improving a problem with computers-the difficulty in rendering realistic graphics between frames in real time on computers given limited computational capabilities.

"In cases involving software innovations, this inquiry often turns on whether the claims focus on specific asserted improvements in computer capabilities or instead on a process or system that qualifies an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a tool." Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics USA, Inc. , 957 F.3d 1303, 1306–07 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp. , 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020), and Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc. , 879 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ); see also BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc. , 899 F.3d 1281, 1285–86 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ; Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc. , 880 F.3d 1356, 1361–62 (Fed. Cir. 2018). "[S]oftware can make patent-eligible improvements to computer technology, and related claims are eligible as long as they are directed to non-abstract improvements to the functionality of a computer or network platform itself."

In cases involving software innovations, the Alice step two and frequently the Alice step one inquiry “often turns on whether the claims focus on specific asserted improvements in computer capabilities or instead on a process or system that qualifies an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics USA, Inc., 957 F.3d 1303, 1306-07 (Fed. Cir. 2020). “[S]oftware can make patent-eligible improvements to computer technology, and related claims are eligible as long as they are directed to non-abstract improvements to the functionality of a computer or network platform itself.”

In cases involving software, step one often "turns on whether the claims focus on specific asserted improvements in computer capabilities or instead on a process or system that qualifies [as] an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a tool." Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., 957 F.3d 1303, 1306-07 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Cus-tomedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020)).

“In cases involving software innovations, [the step one] inquiry often turns on whether the claims focus on specific asserted improvements in computer capabilities or instead on a process or system that qualifies an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Elecs., USA, Inc., 957 F.3d 1303, 130708 (Fed. Cir. 2020);

Redwood argues that claim 1 of the '457 patent is like the claims that the Federal Circuit found patent-eligible in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., 957 F.3d 1303, 1307-1308 (Fed. Cir. 2020). D.I. 21 at 5

the inquiry may “turn[] on whether the claims focus on specific asserted improvements in computer capabilities or instead on a process or system that qualifies an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., 957 F.3d 1303, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Customedia Techs., LLC v. DISH Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020)).

In cases involving software-based improvements to computer technology, the Court's inquiry at Alice's first step is to ask "whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities ... or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an 'abstract idea' for which computers are invoked merely as a tool." Id. at 1335-36; see Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., 957 F.3d 1303, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ("[T]his inquiry often turns on whether the claims focus on specific asserted improvements in computer capabilities or instead on a process or system that qualifies an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.").

To be patent eligible, improvements to a technological process must be directed to “non-abstract improvements to the functionality of” the existing technological process. See Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., 957 F.3d 1303, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2020). But here, Geoscope's claimed advance-modifying data-is itself an abstract concept.