§ 101 Eligibility

Section 101 defines what may be patented at all, and excludes abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena. Under the two-step framework from Alice and Mayo, a court first asks whether a claim is directed to one of those excluded concepts, and if so whether the claim elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, add an inventive concept sufficient to transform it into a patent-eligible application. The inquiry is a question of law that may rest on underlying factual findings, which means it can be resolved on the pleadings in some cases and requires evidence in others. The opinions here address eligibility at every procedural stage, from motions to dismiss through appeal.

410 opinions and orders, showing 401–410.

• May 20, 2013 Fed. Cir. Alexsam, Inc. v. IDT Corporation, No. 12-1063 (Fed. Cir. May 20, 2013) Affirmed in Part
• May 10, 2013 Fed. Cir. CLS Bank International v. Alice Corporation, No. 11-1301 (Fed. Cir. May 10, 2013) Affirmed in Part
• September 23, 2012 E.D. Tex. First American CoreLogic, Inc. v. Fiserv, Inc. et al, No. 2:10-cv-00132 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 23, 2012) Denied
• August 16, 2012 Fed. Cir. Assoc for Molecular Pathology v. PTO, No. 10-1406 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2012) Affirmed in Part
• August 7, 2012 Fed. Cir. Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Management, No. 11-1219 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 7, 2012) Affirmed in Part
• July 9, 2012 Fed. Cir. CLS Bank International v. Alice Corporation, No. 11-1301 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2012) Reversed
• September 15, 2011 Fed. Cir. Ultramercial, Inc. v. WildTangent, Inc., No. 10-1544 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 15, 2011) Reversed
• July 29, 2011 Fed. Cir. Assoc for Molecular Pathology v. PTO, No. 10-1406 (Fed. Cir. July 29, 2011) Affirmed in Part
• July 7, 2010 E.D. Tex. Key Energy Services, Inc. v. C.C. Forbes, LLC et al, No. 2:08-cv-00346 (E.D. Tex. July 7, 2010) Claims Construed
• October 7, 2009 E.D. Tex. Abstrax, Inc. v. Dell, Inc. et al, No. 2:07-cv-00221 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2009) Adopted