19 Cited authorities

Jones v. Bock
549 U.S. 199 (2007) Cited 12,834 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that PLRA exhaustion is mandatory, and prisoners cannot bring unexhausted claims into federal court
Bilski v. Kappos
561 U.S. 593 (2010) Cited 805 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible
Diamond v. Diehr
450 U.S. 175 (1981) Cited 527 times 130 Legal Analyses
Holding a procedure for molding rubber that included a computer program is within patentable subject matter
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
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"
Muhammad v. Oliver
547 F.3d 874 (7th Cir. 2008) Cited 193 times
Finding that a res judicata defense can be "a proper basis for a Rule 12(b) motion" when the complaint includes the facts necessary for the defense, invoking the principle that a "plaintiff can plead himself out of court"
E.I. Du Pont de Nemours Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
849 F.2d 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 319 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that it is improper to read a limitation "into a claim from the specification wholly apart from any need to interpret what the patentee meant by particular words or phrases in the claim."
Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp.
550 U.S. 437 (2007) Cited 48 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that Windows "software, uncoupled from a medium" was not a "combinable component" and that "a copy of Windows, not Windows in the abstract, qualifies as a 'component' under § 271(f)."
South Corp. v. United States
690 F.2d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1982) Cited 261 times 2 Legal Analyses
Adopting Court of Claims opinions as binding precedent
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."

Edge Capture L.L.C. et al v. Barclays Bank PLC et al

19 Cited authorities

Holding that PLRA exhaustion is mandatory, and prisoners cannot bring unexhausted claims into federal court

Holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible

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

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

Holding narrow mathematical formula unpatentable

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"

Finding that a res judicata defense can be "a proper basis for a Rule 12(b) motion" when the complaint includes the facts necessary for the defense, invoking the principle that a "plaintiff can plead himself out of court"

Holding that it is improper to read a limitation "into a claim from the specification wholly apart from any need to interpret what the patentee meant by particular words or phrases in the claim."

Holding that Windows "software, uncoupled from a medium" was not a "combinable component" and that "a copy of Windows, not Windows in the abstract, qualifies as a 'component' under § 271(f)."

Adopting Court of Claims opinions as binding precedent

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."