5 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 43 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation Anchor | green | “the 101 inquiry must focus on the language of the asserted claims themselves.” | 18 |
| 2 | McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. | green | “ourts 'must be careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims' by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims.” | 9 |
| 3 | Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc. | green | “while the ultimate determination of eligibility under 101 is a question of law, like many legal questions, there can be subsidiary fact questions which must be resolved en route to the ultimate legal determination.” | 6 |
| 4 | Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l | green | “e must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an 'inventive concept.” | 5 |
| 5 | Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. amazon.com Inc. | green | “either the claim nor the specification reveals any concrete way of employing a customized user interface.” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.