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-cv01212-RGA, Judge Richard G. Andrews.

______________________ 

Decided: November 1, 2017

______________________ 

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

Houston, TX, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented 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, Washington, 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 directed 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 continuation 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 patent”). 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 destination 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 transmit 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 provides 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 monitoring 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 protocol,

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 users, 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 audio and/or visual selection.

J.A. 111 at col. 18 ll. 17–34; J.A. 114 (certificate of correction). Two-Way Media asserts that the claims of the ’622 

patent are directed to the features described in the specification, 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 communications 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 response to information selection signals received 

from the users,

verifying the operational status of the users’ access to the communications network during delivery 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 comprising:

selecting an intermediate server from multiple intermediate 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 correction).

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 evidentiary 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 construction was necessary to evaluate whether the representative

claims were eligible under § 101. Two-Way Media provided 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 testimony, 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 inventions. 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 whether 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 abstract 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 monitoring the delivery of audio/visual information. 

Id. at *5 (citations omitted). The district court determined 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 [TwoWay Media’s] proposed claim constructions, some of which 

explicitly incorporate the words ‘intermediate computers.’” 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 delivery 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 functionality 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 judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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 “directed 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 patent, 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 Patents, 790 F.3d at 1348–49. 

The district court found that claim 1 of the ’187 patent, 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 limitations present in its proposed constructions. We disagree.

Claim 1 recites a method for routing information using result-based functional language. The claim requires 

the functional results of “converting,” “routing,” “controlling,” “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 communicating regional broadcast content to an out-of-region 

recipient, not a particular way of performing that function”). 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 methods 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 displaying the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive 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 components. For example, Two-Way Media proposed a construction 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 physical 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 representative 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 patenteligible 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 architecture 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 specification—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 unclaimed 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 functional 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 constructions, 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 ineligible a claim directed to a method of virus screening even 

where the method required use of an “intermediary computer 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 conventional 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 abstract idea performed on a set of generic computer components, 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 determination to reject Two-Way Media’s proffered material, as 

the court correctly concluded that the material was relevant to a novelty and obviousness analysis, and not 

whether the claims were directed to eligible subject matter. Eligibility and novelty are separate inquiries. Affinity 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 delivery 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 problems. 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 monitoring 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 information, 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 district 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, transmitting 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. Intellectual 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 arguments 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