35 U.S.C. § 101
Inventions patentable
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2,487
cases (794 in the last 5 years), 1949–2026 · leading case: Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “6,950,807 B2 (“the ’807 patent”) are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 . CAC appeals the Board’s determi- nation that the petitioner, Westlake Services, LLC (“Westlake”), was not estopped from maintaining CBM review of those claims under 35 U.”
BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “5,987,606 are invalid as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 101 . BASCOM has alleged that the claims of the ’606 patent contain an “inventive concept” in their ordered combination of limitations sufficient to satisfy the second step of the Supreme Court’s Alice test.”
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “52(c) for a judgment that all the asserted claims of the three patents-in-suit are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 , an issue not addressed in the jury ver- dict.”
J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l, Inc., 534 U.S. 124 (2001). “This case presents the question whether utility patents may be issued for plants under 35 U. S. C. § 101 (1994 ed.), or whether the Plant Variety Protection Act, 84 Stat.”
CLS Bank Int'l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “Upon consideration en banc, a majority of the court affirms the district court’s holding that the asserted method and computer-readable media claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 . * Circuit Judge Taranto did not participate in this decision.”
Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elec., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “8,434,020 (“’020 patent”) are directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ; (2) denying judgment as matter of law that U.”
Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “On January 9, 2013, the PTAB granted SAP’s petition and instituted a covered business method review of the ’350 patent.”
Ddr Holdings, LLC v. hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “9 and ’399 patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be- cause the claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter and invalid under 35 U.”
Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “1 Appellees responded by filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that various claims of the Patents-in-Suit (“the Asserted Claims”) 2 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (2012). 3 The District Court granted Appellees’ Motion, holding that the Asserted…”
Accenture Global Servs. v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “Patent 7,013,284 (the “’284 patent”) are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 . Accenture Global Servs.”
Berkheimer v. Hp Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “7,447,713 (’713 patent) invalid as ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 . Mr. Berk-heimer also appeals the district court’s decision holding claims 10-19 of the ’713 patent invalid for indefiniteness.”
In Re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “Specifically, Applicants argue that the examiner erroneously rejected the claims as not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 , and that the Board erred in upholding that rejection.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.