Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of computer [technology],-” DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257. Thus, claim 1 fails to recite an inventive concept. Accordingly, claim 1 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under § 101. 4. Alice Step Two for Remaining Asserted Claims of the ’051 Patent-Evaluation of Abstract Claims for an Inventive Concept Plaintiff has not separately identified an inventive concept for the remaining asserted claims apart from those already discussed above. Thus, the Court need not address whether any of the additional limitations in the remaining claims provide an inventive concept. Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 892 (9th Cir. 2008) (litigants waive arguments by failing to raise them in an opposition to a motion to dismiss); accord John-Charles v. California, 646 F.3d 1243, 1247 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011).(<HOLDING>). Accordingly, for .the same reasons discussed 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an issue is waived where the defendant failed to develop an argument in his appellate brief and cited no authority (B) holding party failed to develop any argument on this front and thus has waived it (C) holding that the appellant waived this argument (D) holding that the defendant waived argument on appeal by failing to develop a cogent argument (E) holding an argument waived in part because the party failed to develop it in the district court
Output (English): holding that an issue is waived where the defendant failed to develop an argument in his appellate brief and cited no authority