On July 6, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued a unanimous panel Opinion that two Intellectual Ventures patents are patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 in Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One Bank (USA),Appeal No. 2014-1506. The Court followed the two step test set forth in Mayo v. Prometheus,132 S.Ct. 1289, 1297:  (1) “First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept”; and (2) “We next consider the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” The Court found that an “abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the internet.” Specifically, the Court held that “the patent claims are directed to an abstract idea:  tracking financial transactions to determine whether they exceed a pre-set spending limit (i.e., budgeting)” and “while the claims recite budgeting using a ‘communication medium’ (broadly including the Internet and telephone networks), that limitation does not render the claims any less abstract.” Patent ineligibility under Section 101 may become the subject of a future request for a 100-Day early disposition in an ITC Section 337 investigation. In OIP v. Amazon.com, Appeal No. 2012-1696 (Fed. Cir. June 11, 2015), the Court affirmed a district court’s judgment on the pleadings of patent-ineligibility. Circuit Judge Mayer noted that “[f]ailure to recite statutory subject matter is the sort of ‘basic deficiency,’ that can, and should, ‘be exposed at the point of minimum expenditure of time and money by the parties and the court’….”