an “inventive concept” that “ensure[s] that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the [ineligible concept] itself.” 134 S.Ct. at 2355 (citing Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1303). In applying Section 101 analysis at the pleading stage, the mov ., 50 F.Supp.3d 1306, 1314 (C.D.Cal.2014) (citation omitted) (applying clear and convincing evidence standard to Section 101 challenge). However, the appropriateness of attaching a presumption of validity to a patent subject to a Section 101 analysis has been questioned. See Ultramercial, Inc, v. Hulu, LLC (“Ultramercial II”), 772 F.3d 709, 720-21 (Fed. Cir.2014); see also TNS Media Research, LLC v. Tivo Research & Analytics, Inc., No. 11-cv-4039 SAS, 166 F.Supp.3d 432, 446-47, 2016 WL 817447, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2016) (<HOLDING>). b. The ’038 Patent’s claims are directed to
holding that the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof applicable in fraud actions does not apply to the proof of misrepresentations under ors 743612 holding that a bad faith claim must be met through the clear and convincing evidence standard holding that the clear and convincing evidentiary standard applies to section 101 challenges holding that the presumption of validity  and its concomitant clear and convincing evidence standard  does not apply to section 101 claims the court reasoned because no evidence outside the pleadings is considered in deciding a motion to dismiss  it makes little sense to apply a clear and convincing standard  a burden of proof  to such motions citation omitted holding that despite the lack of a statutory requirement that severe child abuse be shown by clear and convincing evidence due to the consequences of such a finding the clear and convincing standard must be applied