Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

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

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.

Holding that "the basic underlying concern that these patents tie up too much future use of laws of nature" reinforced the holding of ineligibility

Bilski v. Kappos

Holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible

Berkheimer v. HP Inc.

Holding that claims may be treated as "representative" in a § 101 inquiry if a patentee makes no "meaningful argument for the distinctive significance of any claim limitations not found in the representative claim"

Buysafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc.

Holding that claims "squarely about creating a contractual relationship" drew on idea of "ancient lineage," even where dependent claims "narrow[ed] to particular types of such relationships"

Dann v. Johnston

Finding it obvious to combine the modern computer program described in the patent with "existing machine systems in the banking industry"

In re Bigio

Affirming conclusion that toothbrush and small hair brush were in same field of endeavor because "the structural similarities between toothbrushes and small brushes for hair would have led one of ordinary skill in the art working in the specific field of hairbrushes to consider all similar brushes including toothbrushes"

In re Oetiker

Reversing for "improperly combined" references, because "[i]f examination at the initial stage does not produce a prima facie case of unpatentability, then without more the applicant is entitled to grant of the patent"

Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec

Finding that claim of a patent directed to a single step of reviewing effects of known immunization schedules was directed to patent-ineligible subject matter, as it did "not including putting this knowledge to practical use" while a claim that required the "further act of immunization in accordance with a lower-risk schedule" moved the claim from "abstract scientific principle to specific application"

Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

Section 101 - Inventions patentable

Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

Section 1 - Establishment

Noting that Congress did not intend to change these "narrowing interpretations"

Section 132 - Notice of rejection; reexamination

Prohibiting addition of "new matter"

Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

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"

Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board