Computer use in abstract ideas must be integral
Also stated as: Determining abstract idea versus computer functionality improvement
The pages courts cite for it
- Cited for: Computer use in abstract ideas must be integral
- Cited for: Determining abstract idea versus computer functionality improvement
- Cited for: Adding computer functionality to abstract idea is insufficient
- Cited for: Applying the two-step framework to abstract ideas
- Cited for: Analyzing abstract ideas implemented on generic computer
- Cited for: Analyzing overlap between abstract idea steps one and two
- Cited for: Distinguishing specific computer improvements from abstract ideas
- Cited for: Limiting abstract ideas to technological environments
Ranked by how often federal courts cite each page. The bar is how citing opinions treated that page (green followed, yellow questioned or limited, red negative); a red or yellow chip is the case’s own overall treatment.
Federal opinions citing these pages
- Ecoservices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Servs., 830 F. App'x 634 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
- Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
- Am. Well Corp. v. Teladoc, Inc., 191 F. Supp. 3d 135 (D. Mass. 2016)
- Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 723 F. Supp. 3d 132 (N.D.N.Y. 2024)
- In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2022)
- Vroom, Inc. v. Sidekick Tech., LLC, 609 F. Supp. 3d 307 (D.N.J. 2022)
- Atos, LLC v. AllState Ins. Co., No. 1:20-cv-06224 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 12, 2021)
- Tenstreet, LLC v. Driverreach, LLC, 417 F. Supp. 3d 1144 (S.D. Ind. 2019)
- Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
- X One, Inc. v. Uber Tech., Inc., 239 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (N.D. Cal. 2017)
- Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 200 F. Supp. 3d 565 (W.D. Pa. 2016)
- Papst Licensing GmbH v. Xilinx Inc., 193 F. Supp. 3d 1069 (N.D. Cal. 2016)
- Nielsen Co. (US) v. VideoAmp, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00408 (D. Del. Feb. 12, 2026)
- Lightning Fitness Sys. LLC v. Precor Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00012 (D. Del. Feb. 28, 2025)
From the opinions citing the top pages above (up to 400 per page are read), most pages cited first, then newest.
Nearest issues
- 239 opinions
- 317 opinions
- 443 opinions
- 226 opinions
- 350 opinions
- 531 opinions
- 341 opinions
- 126 opinions
Filed under: Patent eligibility; Abstract; 101
Where else it is alive
Opinions per jurisdiction citing these pages. A span that stops early can mean the doctrine was dropped there.
How this is built: each issue is a set of opinion pages that later courts cite for the same proposition, grouped from what the citing courts wrote. Names are machine-written from those citations; read the cases before relying on them. Search case law