21 Cited authorities

Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International
573 U.S. 208 (2014) Cited 1,412 times 520 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
Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.
566 U.S. 66 (2012) Cited 801 times 153 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the basic underlying concern that these patents tie up too much future use of laws of nature" reinforced the holding of ineligibility
Bilski v. Kappos
561 U.S. 593 (2010) Cited 817 times 160 Legal Analyses
Holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible
Brooks v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.
116 F.3d 1364 (11th Cir. 1997) Cited 1,970 times
Holding that employees "who have not suffered an injury in that they have been covered by Medicare for the medical care they have received retain a sufficient interest in this action for purposes of the Constitutional 'case or controversy' requirement"
Lowrey v. Texas a M University System
117 F.3d 242 (5th Cir. 1997) Cited 1,352 times
Holding that “title IX affords a private right of action for retaliation against the employees of federally funded educational institutions.”
Kaiser Aluminum, Etc. v. Avondale Shipyards
677 F.2d 1045 (5th Cir. 1982) Cited 2,007 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that, when a counterclaim showed that a contract was executed outside the limitations period, the "counterclaim on its face appears to reveal the existence of an affirmative defense to it, which would make the granting of a Rule 12(b) dismissal proper"
DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.
773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 524 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"
Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada
687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 380 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that the machine-or-transformation test remains an important clue in determining whether some inventions are processes under § 101
McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp.
501 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 412 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that a direct infringement claim made in accordance with Form 16 (now Form 18) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure meets the Twombly pleading standard
Campbell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
781 F.2d 440 (5th Cir. 1986) Cited 556 times
Holding that non-customers do not, per se, lack standing to bring an action pursuant to Section 1975
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 358,269 times 949 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 3,486 times 2271 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."

Orostream LLC v. ABS-CBN International

21 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 that "the basic underlying concern that these patents tie up too much future use of laws of nature" reinforced the holding of ineligibility

Holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible

Holding that employees "who have not suffered an injury in that they have been covered by Medicare for the medical care they have received retain a sufficient interest in this action for purposes of the Constitutional 'case or controversy' requirement"

Holding that “title IX affords a private right of action for retaliation against the employees of federally funded educational institutions.”

Holding that, when a counterclaim showed that a contract was executed outside the limitations period, the "counterclaim on its face appears to reveal the existence of an affirmative defense to it, which would make the granting of a Rule 12(b) dismissal proper"

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

Holding that a direct infringement claim made in accordance with Form 16 (now Form 18) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure meets the Twombly pleading standard

Holding that non-customers do not, per se, lack standing to bring an action pursuant to Section 1975

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."