14 Cited authorities

Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International
573 U.S. 208 (2014) Cited 1,407 times 519 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
Bilski v. Kappos
561 U.S. 593 (2010) Cited 816 times 160 Legal Analyses
Holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible
Diamond v. Diehr
450 U.S. 175 (1981) Cited 537 times 130 Legal Analyses
Holding a procedure for molding rubber that included a computer program is within patentable subject matter
DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.
773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 523 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"
Diamond v. Chakrabarty
447 U.S. 303 (1980) Cited 405 times 86 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"
Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada
687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 378 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that the machine-or-transformation test remains an important clue in determining whether some inventions are processes under § 101
Pannu v. Iolab Corp.
155 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1998) Cited 351 times 44 Legal Analyses
Holding someone an inventor, even though he had publicly disclosed his contribution more than a year prior to the collaboration, because he was "doing more than simply providing [a co-inventor] with well-known principles or explaining the state of the art; he was contributing his ideas concerning the snagresistant elements to a total inventive concept."
Wildtangent, Inc. v. Ultramercial, LLC
573 U.S. 942 (2014) Cited 40 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the clear and convincing evidentiary standard applies to Section 101 challenges
Arcia v. Fla. Sec'y of State
772 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2014) Cited 103 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiff organizations engaged in voter registration efforts had standing to challenge a program designed to remove individuals from voting rolls because the organizations diverted resources to address the program
Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc.
679 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 64 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court committed error by “us[ing] the invention to define the problem that the invention solves”
Section 101 - Inventions patentable
35 U.S.C. § 101 Cited 3,482 times 2270 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."

ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Google, Inc.

14 Cited authorities

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

Holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible

Holding a procedure for molding rubber that included a computer program is within patentable subject matter

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"

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

Holding that the clear and convincing evidentiary standard applies to Section 101 challenges

Holding that plaintiff organizations engaged in voter registration efforts had standing to challenge a program designed to remove individuals from voting rolls because the organizations diverted resources to address the program

Holding that the district court committed error by “us[ing] the invention to define the problem that the invention solves”

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