§

Meridianlink, Inc. v. DH Holdings, LLC

09277771 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2013)
Meridianlink, Inc. v. DH Holdings, LLC

21 Cited authorities

  1. Parker v. Flook

    437 U.S. 584 (1978)   Cited 372 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Holding narrow mathematical formula unpatentable

  2. Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada

    687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 385 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the machine-or-transformation test remains an important clue in determining whether some inventions are processes under § 101

  3. Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.

    314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 508 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “non-naturally occurring” and “not isolated” were structural elements defining the source of the claimed material, rather than steps for obtaining it

  4. Cybersource Corp.. v. Retail Decisions Inc.

    654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 286 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"

  5. DealerTrack, Inc. v. Huber

    674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 217 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "computer-aided" method for "processing information through a clearinghouse" for car loan applications is patent ineligible

  6. CLS Bank International v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.

    717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 176 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the presumption of validity applies to challenges pursuant to Section 101

  7. SiRF Technology, Inc. v. International Trade Commission

    601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 178 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[a]bsent the voluntary joinder of all co-owners of a patent, a co-owner acting alone" lacks standing to sue for patent infringement

  8. Research Corp. Tech. v. Microsoft Corp.

    627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 110 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a process is patent eligible subject matter when it “presents functional and palpable application in the field of computer technology.”

  9. In re Ngai

    367 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that allowing claims where the printed matter was the only novel contribution would allow "anyone [to] continue patenting a product indefinitely provided that they add a new instruction sheet to the product"

  10. In re Gulack

    703 F.2d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 31 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that even though the claim included printed matter, the printed matter was still entitled to patentable weight because there was a functional relationship between the printed matter and its underlying substrate

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,420 times   1069 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,172 times   492 Legal Analyses
    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."

  13. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,547 times   2302 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."

  14. 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"

  15. Section 324 - Institution of post-grant review

    35 U.S.C. § 324   Cited 42 times   58 Legal Analyses
    Requiring threshold determination that it is "more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims . . . is unpatentable"

  16. Section 321 - Post-grant review

    35 U.S.C. § 321   Cited 41 times   37 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a party to petition for PGR "to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent on any ground that could be raised under paragraph or of section 282(b) (relating to invalidity of the patent or any claim")

  17. Section 42.4 - Notice of trial

    37 C.F.R. § 42.4   Cited 54 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "[t]he Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director"

  18. Section 42.301 - Definitions

    37 C.F.R. § 42.301   Cited 21 times   56 Legal Analyses
    Defining the scope of CBM review

  19. Section 42.300 - Procedure; pendency

    37 C.F.R. § 42.300   Cited 13 times   10 Legal Analyses

    (a) A covered business method patent review is a trial subject to the procedures set forth in subpart A of this part and is also subject to the post-grant review procedures set forth in subpart C except for §§ 42.200 , 42.201 , 42.202 , and 42.204 . (b) In a covered business method patent review proceeding, a claim of a patent, or a claim proposed in a motion to amend under § 42.221 , shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil

  20. Section 42.208 - Institution of post-grant review

    37 C.F.R. § 42.208   Cited 6 times   5 Legal Analyses

    (a) When instituting post-grant review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim. (b) At any time prior to institution of post-grant review, the Board may deny all grounds for unpatentability for all of the challenged claims. Denial of all grounds is a Board decision not to institute post-grant review. (c) Post-grant review shall not be instituted unless the Board decides that the information presented