Results for abstract idea
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.
Yanbin Yu, Zhongxuan Zhang v. Apple Inc.
A claim reciting a digital camera having multiple image sensors and a digital image processor that produces an enhanced image using two images acquired by the multiple image sensors is patent ineligible because the components are considered well-known, routine, and conventional.
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH, Gemalto Inc., etc.
An improved result, without more stated in the claim, is not enough to confer eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. To be patent-eligible, the claims must recite a specific means or method that solves a problem in an existing technological process.
Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc.
Claim limitations reciting a specific manner of displaying information in a computer user interface are an improvement to the functioning of computers and are not directed to an abstract idea.
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.
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
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.
Claims directed to methods that can be performed mentally are likely to be invalid under § 101.
Gottschalk v. Benson
The Supreme Court held that an invention claimed as a process that is (a) defined by an algorithm with no practical use except in the programmed manipulation of signals in a digital computer, and (b) not limited to a subset of possible applications, do not fall within the requirements of statutory subject matter under Section 101.
In re Comiskey
Mental processes, i.e., processes directed to abstract ideas that are not tied to specific machines and do not create or involve manufactures or compositions of matter, are not patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101, even if they have a practical application.