Universal Secure Registry, LLC. v. Apple, Inc., Visa, Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc.
To pass muster under the Alice two-step test, the claims must provide sufficient specificity to constitute an improvement to computer functionality itself.
To pass muster under the Alice two-step test, the claims must provide sufficient specificity to constitute an improvement to computer functionality itself.
Claims directed to a mathematical algorithms and mental processes without recitations of how they are applied are unpatentable under Section 101.
Claims directed to a natural law without recitations of how to apply the natural law are unpatentable under Section 101.
Using the subject matter eligibility examples provided by the USPTO does not guarantee that the claims comply with 35 U.S.C. § 101—especially claim 1 of Example 29.
Safe harbor provision does not shield a divisional application from the double patenting effect of a patent that issued before the divisional application was filed.
Claims covering improvements to computer functionality are patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 while recitations directed to results alone are not.
The Supreme Court holds that an invention which has no inventive concept other than the use of a mathematical algorithm is not patentable. The mathematical algorithm itself is treated as part of the prior art.
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.
The Federal Circuit holds that “method of treatment” claims are patentable under the Bilski machine-or-transformation test because the administration of a drug to a person results in a transformation of a human body.