29 Cited authorities

Bilski v. Kappos
561 U.S. 593 (2010) Cited 803 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible
Schreiber Distributing v. Serv-Well Furniture
806 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 1986) Cited 2,274 times
Holding that Rule 9(b) requires the plaintiff to "state with particularity" the "circumstances constituting the fraud," including a statement of "the time, place, and specific content of the false representations as well as the identities of the parties to the misrepresentation."
DeSoto v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc.
957 F.2d 655 (9th Cir. 1992) Cited 1,722 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding district court did not abuse discretion in denying leave to amend when no facts consistent with the complaint could save plaintiff's claims
Diamond v. Chakrabarty
447 U.S. 303 (1980) Cited 402 times 83 Legal Analyses
Holding claims patent-eligible where "the patentee has produced a new bacterium with markedly different characteristics from any found in nature and one having the potential for significant utility"
Gottschalk v. Benson
409 U.S. 63 (1972) Cited 497 times 59 Legal Analyses
Holding claim involving mathematical formula invalid under § 101 that did not preempt a mathematical formula
Parker v. Flook
437 U.S. 584 (1978) Cited 369 times 63 Legal Analyses
Holding narrow mathematical formula unpatentable
Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada
687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 373 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that the machine-or-transformation test remains an important clue in determining whether some inventions are processes under § 101
Cybersource Corp.. v. Retail Decisions Inc.
654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Cited 278 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"
Accenture Global Servs. v. Guidewire Software, Inc.
728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) Cited 234 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that claims lacked an inventive concept despite identifying several specific components used in the application
In re Bilski
545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 270 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that non-preemption under the second step of what was then called the "Freeman –Walter –Abele test" requires that the claim be "tied to a particular machine or bring about a particular transformation of a particular article"
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 344,855 times 920 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Section 101 - Inventions patentable
35 U.S.C. § 101 Cited 3,391 times 2188 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."

Cogent Medicine Inc. v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. et al

29 Cited authorities

Holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible

Holding that Rule 9(b) requires the plaintiff to "state with particularity" the "circumstances constituting the fraud," including a statement of "the time, place, and specific content of the false representations as well as the identities of the parties to the misrepresentation."

Holding district court did not abuse discretion in denying leave to amend when no facts consistent with the complaint could save plaintiff's claims

Holding claims patent-eligible where "the patentee has produced a new bacterium with markedly different characteristics from any found in nature and one having the potential for significant utility"

Holding claim involving mathematical formula invalid under § 101 that did not preempt a mathematical formula

Holding narrow mathematical formula unpatentable

Holding that the machine-or-transformation test remains an important clue in determining whether some inventions are processes under § 101

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"

Holding that claims lacked an inventive concept despite identifying several specific components used in the application

Holding that non-preemption under the second step of what was then called the "Freeman –Walter –Abele test" requires that the claim be "tied to a particular machine or bring about a particular transformation of a particular article"

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

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