Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Ex Parte Dohring et al

19 Cited authorities

  1. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,450 times   521 Legal Analyses
    Holding ineligible patent claims directed to the concept of "intermediated settlement," i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate the risk that only one party to an agreed-upon financial exchange will satisfy its obligation

  2. Bilski v. Kappos

    561 U.S. 593 (2010)   Cited 835 times   160 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible

  3. Diamond v. Diehr

    450 U.S. 175 (1981)   Cited 544 times   130 Legal Analyses
    Holding a procedure for molding rubber that included a computer program is within patentable subject matter

  4. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.

    773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 533 times   92 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims on maintaining website look-and-feel patent-eligible because claims were "necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks"

  5. OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

    788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 275 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Section 101 inquiry is a question of law

  6. Cybersource Corp.. v. Retail Decisions Inc.

    654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 285 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim whose "steps can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" is directed to an "unpatentable mental process"

  7. Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc.

    838 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 116 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in Alice step one, "it is often helpful to ask whether the claims are directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or merely adding conventional computer component to well-known business practices," with the latter being abstract

  8. Vehicle Intelligence & Safety LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

    635 F. App'x 914 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 31 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Affirming district court's grant of Rule 12(c) motion following claim construction

  9. SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Laboratories, SA

    555 F. App'x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 22 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Finding ineligible a claim which "does no more than call on a 'computing device,' with basic functionality for comparing stored and input data and rules, to do what doctors do routinely"

  10. Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corporation

    45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930)   Cited 323 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a quarrel between families of different ethnicities and religions, the marriage of their children, the birth of grandchildren and a reconciliation were not protected by copyright

  11. Section 101 - Definitions

    10 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 198 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Defining "active duty"

  12. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 188 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"

  13. Section 2 - Powers and duties

    35 U.S.C. § 2   Cited 116 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing the Patent Office to cover the expenses of "persons" other than federal employees attending programs on intellectual-property protection

  14. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 98 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) PATENT APPLICANT.-An applicant for a patent, any of whose claims has been twice rejected, may appeal from the decision of the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. (b) PATENT OWNER.-A patent owner in a reexamination may appeal from the final rejection of any claim by the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. 35 U.S.C. § 134 July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 801; Pub. L. 98-622

  15. Section 9 - Certified copies of records

    35 U.S.C. § 9

    The Director may furnish certified copies of specifications and drawings of patents issued by the Patent and Trademark Office, and of other records available either to the public or to the person applying therefor. 35 U.S.C. § 9 July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 794, §10; Pub. L. 93-596, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1949; renumbered §9 and amended Pub. L. 106-113, div. B, §1000(a)(9) [title IV, §§4717(1), 4732(a)(10)(A)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A-580, 1501A-582; Pub. L. 107-273, div. C,

  16. Section 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well

  17. Section 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 17 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) If an applicant is required to reply within a nonstatutory or shortened statutory time period, applicant may extend the time period for reply up to the earlier of the expiration of any maximum period set by statute or five months after the time period set for reply, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed, unless: (i) Applicant is notified otherwise in an Office action; (ii) The reply is a reply brief submitted pursuant to § 41.41 of this title; (iii)