Carol Mooney v. Genuine Parts Company d/b/a National Automotive Association, Inc. (\NAPA\)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that claims to self-referential tables that allowed for more efficient launching and adaptation of databases were not directed to an abstract idea
• explaining that only “some improvements in computer-related technology” are “not abstract, such as a chip architecture, an LED display, and the like”
• finding that it is “sufficient to compare claims at issue to 24 those claims already found to be directed to an abstract idea in previous cases”
• finding that it is “sufficient to compare 20 claims at issue to those claims already found to be directed to an abstract idea in previous 21 cases”
• noting that the Federal Circuit “and the Supreme Court have found it sufficient to compare claims at issue to those claims already found to be directed to an abstract idea in previous cases”
• determining at step one that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea and, therefore, not discussing step two

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).