Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

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

Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.

Holding that "the basic underlying concern that these patents tie up too much future use of laws of nature" reinforced the holding of ineligibility

Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.

Holding that claims to self-referential tables that allowed for more efficient launching and adaptation of databases were not directed to an abstract idea

Berkheimer v. HP Inc.

Holding that claims may be treated as "representative" in a § 101 inquiry if a patentee makes no "meaningful argument for the distinctive significance of any claim limitations not found in the representative claim"

BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC

Holding claims eligible at step two because the claims recited a "technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering ... content" that "improve the performance of the computer system itself"

Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.

Holding that the dependent claims did not salvage the corresponding independent claims from a finding of ineligibility where they did not add an inventive concept

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

Holding that a method which organized two data sets "into a new form" was abstract because it merely "employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information" and that "organizing information through mathematical correlations is not tied to a specific structure or machine" was directed to an abstract idea

Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc.

Holding patent claim subject matter ineligible under § 101 where district court did not engage in claim construction, and plaintiff "d[id] not explain which terms require construction or how the analysis would change"

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

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."

Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

Section 101 - Inventions patentable

Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

Section 1 - Establishment

Noting that Congress did not intend to change these "narrowing interpretations"

Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

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"

Section 2 - Powers and duties

Authorizing the Patent Office to cover the expenses of "persons" other than federal employees attending programs on intellectual-property protection

Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board