§Why CasetextPricing

Global Equity Management (Sa) Pty. Ltd. v. Ebay, Inc.

MOTION for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §101

20 Cited authorities

  1. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,353 times   505 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. Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.

    569 U.S. 576 (2013)   Cited 441 times   147 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated"

  3. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.

    822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 690 times   118 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims to self-referential tables that allowed for more efficient launching and adaptation of databases were not directed to an abstract idea

  4. BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC

    827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 450 times   55 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims eligible at step two because the claims recited a "technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering ... content" that "improve the performance of the computer system itself"

  5. Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.

    790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 356 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the dependent claims did not salvage the corresponding independent claims from a finding of ineligibility where they did not add an inventive concept

  6. 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"

  7. Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.

    841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 208 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding claim eligible at step two because it "entails an unconventional technological solution ... to a technological problem," and the solution "requires that arguably generic components ... operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality"

  8. DealerTrack, Inc. v. Huber

    674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 217 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "computer-aided" method for "processing information through a clearinghouse" for car loan applications is patent ineligible

  9. Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.

    842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 108 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"

  10. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC

    722 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 102 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "it will be rare that a patent infringement suit can be dismissed at the pleading stage for lack of patentable subject matter ... because every issued patent is presumed to have been issued properly, absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary"

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 327,941 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,387 times   2184 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."

  13. Section 154 - Contents and term of patent; provisional rights

    35 U.S.C. § 154   Cited 760 times   257 Legal Analyses
    Granting twenty years for utility patents

  14. Section 1.137 - Revival of abandoned application, or terminated or limited reexamination prosecution

    37 C.F.R. § 1.137   Cited 55 times   44 Legal Analyses

    (a)Revival on the basis of unintentional delay. If the delay in reply by applicant or patent owner was unintentional, a petition may be filed pursuant to this section to revive an abandoned application or a reexamination prosecution terminated under § 1.550(d) or § 1.957(b) or limited under § 1.957(c) . (b)Petition requirements. A grantable petition pursuant to this section must be accompanied by: (1) The reply required to the outstanding Office action or notice, unless previously filed; (2) The

  15. Section 1.27 - Definition of small entities and establishing status as a small entity to permit payment of small entity fees; when a determination of entitlement to small entity status and notification of loss of entitlement to small entity status are required; fraud on the Office

    37 C.F.R. § 1.27   Cited 17 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Defining a small entity as "any inventor of other individual . . . who has not assigned, granted, conveyed, or licensed . . . any rights in the invention"

  16. Section 1.136 - Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 15 times   28 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) If an applicant is required to reply within a nonstatutory or shortened statutory time period, applicant may extend the time period for reply up to the earlier of the expiration of any maximum period set by statute or five months after the time period set for reply, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed, unless: (i) Applicant is notified otherwise in an Office action; (ii) The reply is a reply brief submitted pursuant to § 41.41 of this title; (iii)

  17. Section 1.17 - Patent application and reexamination processing fees

    37 C.F.R. § 1.17   Cited 5 times   48 Legal Analyses

    (a) Extension fees pursuant to § 1.136(a) : (1) For reply within first month: Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(1) By a micro entity (§ 1.29 ) $44.00 By a small entity (§ 1.27(a) ) 88.00 By other than a small or micro entity 220.00 (2) For reply within second month: Table 2 to Paragraph (a)(2) By a micro entity (§ 1.29 ) $128.00 By a small entity (§ 1.27(a) ) 256.00 By other than a small or micro entity 640.00 (3) For reply within third month: Table 3 to Paragraph (a)(3) By a micro entity (§ 1.29 ) $296.00