§

DynamicLogic, LLC

2018003785 (P.T.A.B. May. 14, 2020)
DynamicLogic, LLC

8 Cited authorities

  1. Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Directv, LLC

    838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 299 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "providing out-of-region access to regional broadcast content is an abstract idea" because it comprises "information distribution that is untethered to any specific or concrete [implementation]"

  2. Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC

    874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 225 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he 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."

  3. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.

    839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 183 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims "directed to collecting and analyzing information to detect misuse and notifying a user when misuse is detected" were "directed to a combination of . . . abstract-idea categories" despite the claims' recitation of a computer

  4. RecogniCorp LLC v. Nintendo Co.

    855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 153 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a method in which " user starts with data, codes that data using at least one multiplication operation, and ends with a new form of data" was directed to an abstract idea

  5. Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States

    850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 151 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "claims directed to a new and useful technique for using sensors to more efficiently track an object on a moving platform" were not abstract

  6. Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.

    842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 117 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding claimed menu interface abstract because claimant "[did] not claim a particular way of programming or designing the software to create menus that have these features, but instead merely claim the resulting systems"

  7. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,547 times   2303 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

  8. Section 41.52 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.52   Cited 8 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months of the date of the original decision of the Board. No request for rehearing from a decision on rehearing will be permitted, unless the rehearing decision so modified the original decision as to become, in effect, a new decision, and the Board states that a second request for rehearing would be permitted. The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by