§Why CasetextPricing

EcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC

REPLY in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Judgment of Patent Ineligibility of the '262 Patent 271

16 Cited authorities

  1. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,432 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. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.

    566 U.S. 66 (2012)   Cited 816 times   153 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the basic underlying concern that these patents tie up too much future use of laws of nature" reinforced the holding of ineligibility

  3. Rockwell Int'l Corp. et al. v. United States

    549 U.S. 457 (2007)   Cited 831 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the term "allegations" as used in § 3730(e) "is not limited to the allegations in the original complaint" and "includes (at a minimum) the allegations in the original complaint as amended"

  4. Berkheimer v. HP Inc.

    881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 545 times   47 Legal Analyses
    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"

  5. McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.

    837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 384 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding that using "unconventional rules that relate to sub-sequences of phonemes, timings, and morph weight sets, is not directed to an abstract idea"

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

    788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 273 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Section 101 inquiry is a question of law

  7. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc.

    899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 215 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the claims at issue were directed to the abstract idea of considering historical usage information while inputting data and that the claims' recitation of a specific database structure merely "provides a generic environment in which the claimed method is performed" and "does not save the asserted claims at [Alice] step one."

  8. United States v. Hougham

    364 U.S. 310 (1960)   Cited 291 times
    Holding that "where a judgment is appealed on the ground that the damages are inadequate, acceptance of payment of the amount of the unsatisfactory judgment does not, standing alone, amount to an accord and satisfaction of the entire claim"

  9. Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.

    896 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 112 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "broad, result-oriented" construction of a term encompassed a patent-ineligible abstract concept rather than a technical improvement because "[i]nstead of claiming a solution for producing that result, the claim in effect encompasses all solutions"

  10. Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.

    842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 114 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"

  11. Rule 16 - Pretrial Conferences; Scheduling; Management

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 16   Cited 35,685 times   55 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the sanctions authorized by Rule 37(b)

  12. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,513 times   2284 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."