§

Ex Parte Maxwell et al

13168874 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 7, 2017)
Ex Parte Maxwell et al

16 Cited authorities

  1. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,431 times   520 Legal Analyses
    Holding ineligible patent claims directed to the concept of "intermediated settlement," i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate the risk that only one party to an agreed-upon financial exchange will satisfy its obligation

  2. OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

    788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 273 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Section 101 inquiry is a question of law

  3. Buysafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc.

    765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 270 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims "squarely about creating a contractual relationship" drew on idea of "ancient lineage," even where dependent claims "narrow[ed] to particular types of such relationships"

  4. DealerTrack, Inc. v. Huber

    674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 217 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "computer-aided" method for "processing information through a clearinghouse" for car loan applications is patent ineligible

  5. RecogniCorp LLC v. Nintendo Co.

    855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 149 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a method in which " user starts with data, codes that data using at least one multiplication operation, and ends with a new form of data" was directed to an abstract idea

  6. Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.

    758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 144 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a process of gathering and combining data was patent ineligible because it did not require "input from a physical device"

  7. Macropoint, LLC v. Fourkites, Inc.

    2016-1286 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    2016-1286 12-08-2016 MACROPOINT, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. FOURKITES, INC., Defendant-Appellee CRAIG E. COUNTRYMAN, Fish & Richardson, PC, San Diego, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by JARED ALEXANDER SMITH; AHMED JAMAL DAVIS, Washington, DC. GARY EDWARD HOOD, Polsinelli PC, Chicago, IL, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by MARK THOMAS DEMING, ADAM S. WEISS. PER CURIAM NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. Appeal from the United States District Court for

  8. America's Collectibles Network, Inc. v. the Jewelry Channel, Inc. USA

    2016-1521 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 11, 2017)

    2016-1521 01-11-2017 AMERICA'S COLLECTIBLES NETWORK, INC., Appellant v. THE JEWELRY CHANNEL, INC. USA, DBA LIQUIDATION CHANNEL, Appellee NEIL C. JONES, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Greenville, SC, argued for appellant. Also represented by ASHLEY BOLAND SUMMER. MICHAEL S. TURNER, Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellee. Also represented by JAMES E. ROSINI. PER CURIAM NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office

  9. Wireless Media Innovations, LLC v. Maher Terminals, LLC

    636 F. App'x 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2016)

    2015-1634 2015-1635 02-08-2016 WIRELESS MEDIA INNOVATIONS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. MAHER TERMINALS, LLC, GLOBAL TERMINAL & CONTAINER SERVICES, LLC, Defendants-Appellees DAVID P. SWENSON, Farney Daniels PC, Minneapolis, MN, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by STEVEN R. DANIELS, Georgetown, TX. R. DAVID DONOGHUE, Holland & Knight, LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by ANTHONY J. FUGA; CINDY NGOC-YEN PHAM, Denver, CO. PER CURIAM NOTE: This disposition

  10. Digitech Information Systems, Inc. v. BMW Auto Leasing, LLC

    504 F. App'x 920 (Fed. Cir. 2013)

    2012-1414 05-10-2013 DIGITECH INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BMW AUTO LEASING, LLC, AND BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, LLC, Defendants-Appellees. NORMAN H. ZIVIN, Cooper & Dunham LLP, of New York, New York, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was HINDY DYM. JOSEPH P. LAVELLE, DLA Piper LLP (US), of Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees. Of counsel was A NDREW PER CURIAM NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. Appeal from the United States District Court

  11. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,143 times   481 Legal Analyses
    Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

  12. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,511 times   2284 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

  13. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 186 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"

  14. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 98 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) PATENT APPLICANT.-An applicant for a patent, any of whose claims has been twice rejected, may appeal from the decision of the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. (b) PATENT OWNER.-A patent owner in a reexamination may appeal from the final rejection of any claim by the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. 35 U.S.C. § 134 July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 801; Pub. L. 98-622

  15. Section 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well

  16. Section 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 17 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) If an applicant is required to reply within a nonstatutory or shortened statutory time period, applicant may extend the time period for reply up to the earlier of the expiration of any maximum period set by statute or five months after the time period set for reply, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed, unless: (i) Applicant is notified otherwise in an Office action; (ii) The reply is a reply brief submitted pursuant to § 41.41 of this title; (iii)