20 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 253,227 times 279 Legal Analyses
Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 267,097 times 365 Legal Analyses
Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International
573 U.S. 208 (2014) Cited 1,362 times 507 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 805 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible
Lovelace v. Software Spectrum Inc.
78 F.3d 1015 (5th Cir. 1996) Cited 1,111 times
Holding that courts may take judicial notice of public disclosure documents in securities fraud causes, but "only for the purpose of determining what statements the documents contain, not to prove the truth of the documents’ contents"
DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.
773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 513 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"
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC
772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 487 times 47 Legal Analyses
Holding that displaying an advertisement in exchange for access to copyrighted material is an abstract idea
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
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"
CLS Bank International v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.
717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013) Cited 175 times 35 Legal Analyses
Holding that the presumption of validity applies to challenges pursuant to Section 101
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 346,412 times 923 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 3,404 times 2192 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."

Eclipse IP LLC v. Giftports, Inc.

20 Cited authorities

Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "

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 that courts may take judicial notice of public disclosure documents in securities fraud causes, but "only for the purpose of determining what statements the documents contain, not to prove the truth of the documents’ contents"

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 that displaying an advertisement in exchange for access to copyrighted material is an abstract idea

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

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"

Holding that the presumption of validity applies to challenges pursuant to Section 101

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."