In re Jeffrey A. Killian
Courts are not required to provide a single, inflexible rule for the abstract idea inquiry in view of current case law.
Results for 35 U.S.C. § 101
view Case Detail
Download PDF
CosmoKey Solutions GMBH & Co. KG v. Duo Security LLC, FKA Duo Security, Inc.
Claim limitations reciting specific steps of functionality and description in the specification describing the improvements achieved to such steps in particular help satisfy the Alice test for patent-eligible subject matter.
In re Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University
Claims directed to a mathematical algorithms and mental processes without recitations of how they are applied are unpatentable under Section 101.
Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc.
The specification does not need to expressly list why the claimed invention is unconventional if the claims recite what is inventive, Berkheimer applies to motions under Rule 12(b)(6) in addition to applying at the summary judgment stage, and the presumption of patent validity includes a presumption of patent-eligibility.
Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp.
Claims may be directed to a technological improvement over the prior art and deemed patent-eligible subject matter even if the claims do not recite complete technical details, so long as the technological improvement is sufficiently described within the written description.
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.
Claims directed to methods that can be performed mentally are likely to be invalid under § 101.
McRO, Inc. DBA Planet Blue v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc.,
If a claim is specific and not preemptive, it can be valid under § 101.
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation
Federal Circuit finds data storage claims subject-matter eligible based on clear divergence from traditional storage model and/or directive to solve computer-related problem
OIP Technologies, Inc.. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
An abstract idea, implemented using a routine, conventional activity, is insufficient to supply an “inventive concept.”