34 Cited authorities

  1. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,424 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
  2. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.

    566 U.S. 66 (2012)   Cited 810 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
  3. Bilski v. Kappos

    561 U.S. 593 (2010)   Cited 825 times   160 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible
  4. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.

    822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 733 times   119 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
  5. Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank

    776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 616 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims directed to the "abstract idea of 1
  6. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.

    773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 528 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"
  7. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC

    772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 497 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Holding that displaying an advertisement in exchange for access to copyrighted material is an abstract idea
  8. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C.

    823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 416 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims directed to a method for recording digital images on a telephone were not directed to an improvement to computer functionality because "they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment" without "describ[ing] a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two" or "any technical details for the tangible components"
  9. Parker v. Flook

    437 U.S. 584 (1978)   Cited 370 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Holding narrow mathematical formula unpatentable
  10. 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
  11. 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 361,353 times   960 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
  12. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 336,952 times   161 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
  13. Rule 54 - Judgment; Costs

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 54   Cited 42,850 times   145 Legal Analyses
    Holding party seeking fees may additionally seek "nontaxable expenses"
  14. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,503 times   2283 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."