22 Cited authorities

Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International
573 U.S. 208 (2014) Cited 1,407 times 519 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 799 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 816 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 1,964 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 1,998 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 523 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"
Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.
790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) Cited 369 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
Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada
687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 378 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that the machine-or-transformation test remains an important clue in determining whether some inventions are processes under § 101
WMS Gaming Inc. v. International Game Technology
184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Cited 537 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that district court correctly determined structure was "an algorithm executed by a computer," but "erred by failing to limit the claim to the algorithm disclosed in the specification"
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 357,280 times 950 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 3,480 times 2269 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."

Voxathon LLC v. Alpine Electronics of America, Inc.

22 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 dependent claims did not salvage the corresponding independent claims from a finding of ineligibility where they did not add an inventive concept

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

Holding that district court correctly determined structure was "an algorithm executed by a computer," but "erred by failing to limit the claim to the algorithm disclosed in the specification"

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."