on § 101 ineligibility). Joining the fray, I turn to the first step in the inquiry: is the ’731 patent directed to an abstract idea? Claim 1 of the ’731, which is representative of the asserted claims, is directed to the receipt, storage, and processing of electronically stored information (“ESI”) in a broadly defined computing environment, and to specific types of processing performed in that environment. See ’731 patent at col. 20:25-60. Plaintiff does not appear to dispute that the receipt, storage, and processing of ESI are abstract concepts. Indeed, the Federal Circuit held in Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014), that claims drawn to similarly generic computing functions were directed to abstract ideas. Id. at 1348 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff argues, however, that the asserted
holding that trial court should not have prevented expert from testifying as to his opinion that had echocardiogram been performed it would have shown cardiac tamponade to require testimony based only on tests actually performed would eviscerate the evidence necessary in failuretodiagnose cases holding that data collection recognition and storage were wellknown concepts that humans have always performed holding that the proper measure of damages was the present value of all unaccrued payments that the plaintiff would have received if the contract had been performed holding that statement were the low cost commercial collection experts was puffery because any implication that services were superior to that of the competition was merely general in nature holding that claims alleging prosecutorial misconduct which were based on facts in the record could have and should have been raised on direct appeal and were thus not cognizable in postconviction proceedings