10 Cited authorities

Malacara v. Garber
353 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2003) Cited 1,210 times
Holding that evidence that was not referred to in non-movant's opposition to summary judgment was not properly before the district court on summary judgment and would not be considered on appeal
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"
Voest-Alpine Trading USA Corp. v. Bank of China
142 F.3d 887 (5th Cir. 1998) Cited 157 times
Holding that an American company's “nontrivial financial loss in the United States in the form of funds not remitted to its account at a Texas bank” was a direct effect
In re Comiskey
554 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 81 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that lack of statutory subject matter, a legal question, is a permissible alternative ground for affirmance of the Board
Magnivision, Inc. v. Bonneau Co.
115 F.3d 956 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Cited 38 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[p]rocedural lapses during examination [such as in that case, an examiner's not recording a phone call] ... do not provide grounds of invalidity”
Cybersource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.
620 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2009) Cited 11 times
Finding a method for detecting fraud in credit card transactions over the Internet directed to unpatentable subject matter as the method was not limited to a particular machine, in part, because the process could occur offline: "To give but one example, a merchant taking an order over the telephone could use records or databases to cross-check all credit card numbers associated with that telephone number"
Western Elec. Co., Inc. v. Piezo Technology
860 F.2d 428 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 33 times
Finding that "[i]t is permissible under [United States v.] Morgan[, 313 U.S. 409 (1941)] and its progeny to determine from an examiner whether a party had submitted certain information, or whether specific prior art was before the examiner"
In re Abele
684 F.2d 902 (C.C.P.A. 1982) Cited 40 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that electronic transformation of data into a visual depiction of body tissues satisfied the transformation test for patent eligibility
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 345,981 times 922 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 3,400 times 2189 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."

Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. BankLoans.com LLC et al

10 Cited authorities

Holding that evidence that was not referred to in non-movant's opposition to summary judgment was not properly before the district court on summary judgment and would not be considered on appeal

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 an American company's “nontrivial financial loss in the United States in the form of funds not remitted to its account at a Texas bank” was a direct effect

Holding that lack of statutory subject matter, a legal question, is a permissible alternative ground for affirmance of the Board

Holding that “[p]rocedural lapses during examination [such as in that case, an examiner's not recording a phone call] ... do not provide grounds of invalidity”

Finding that "[i]t is permissible under [United States v.] Morgan[, 313 U.S. 409 (1941)] and its progeny to determine from an examiner whether a party had submitted certain information, or whether specific prior art was before the examiner"

Holding that electronic transformation of data into a visual depiction of body tissues satisfied the transformation test for patent eligibility

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."