This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P owns 954 and 654 patents. The '694 patent is a continuation of the '954 patent, and the two patents share virtually identical specifications. The patents relate to portable, point-of-view (POV) video cameras. The asserted patents disclose a 'hands-free, POV action sports video camera' that is 'configured for remote image acquisition control and viewing.' The patents describe implementing wireless technology in the video camera 10 that allows the camera to send real-time information to a remote device, such as a cell phone. From this remote device, the user can see what is being recorded by the camera. The user can also make real-time adjustments to the recording settings, such as light level and audio settings, before or during an activity. The patent also discloses modifications to the camera's system for processing recordings and permitting real-time playback. In a key embodiment, the patents disclose that camera 10 is configured to generate video recordings 'in two formats, high quality, and low quality, in which the lower quality file is streamed' to the remote device. The system achieves real-time playback on the remote device without exceeding wireless connection bandwidth. The higher-quality version of the recording is saved on the camera for later viewing. In 2015, P sued D alleging that several D products infringed claims of the '954 and '694 patents. In 2021, P filed a second suit against newer D products, alleging that those products similarly infringed claims of the two asserted patents. In 2018, in the first lawsuit, the district court construed a term of claim 11 of the '954 patent that recites: 'generat[ing] from the video image data a first image data stream and a second image data stream, wherein the second image data stream is a higher quality than the first image data stream.' The district court construed the word 'generate' as 'record in parallel from the video image data.' The district court concluded the claim term was limited to recording in parallel because P asserted that the claims required both data streams be generated from the image sensor data, or 'in parallel.' P argued that generating streams in parallel distinguished the claims from prior art systems with streams created 'in sequence,' where the high-resolution stream is generated first and down-converted to create a low-resolution stream. In 2021, the district court granted partial summary judgment that D's accused products infringe claim 11 of the '954 patent in the first lawsuit. D challenged claim 11 of the '954 patent and claim 3 of the '694 patent as patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. D raised its § 101 challenge in the second lawsuit, initially as a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). The district court denied the motion. The district court referred to the two-step § 101 inquiry. D argued that the asserted claims were patent ineligible under § 101. At step one, the district court characterized representative claim 11 as directed to the abstract idea of 'creating and transmitting video (at two different resolutions) and adjusting the video's settings remotely.' At step two, the district court concluded that the claim recites only functional, results-oriented language with 'no indication that the physical components are behaving in any way other than their basic, generic tasks.' The court ruled for D and P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.