Federal Circuit· 2/26/2014
Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc.
Citations
- 558 F. App'x 988
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that a patent claim was subject matter ineligible under Section 101 where the district court did not engage in claim construction, and where the plaintiff “d[id] not explain which terms require construction or how the analysis would change”
- “[U]sing categories to organize, store, and transmit information is [an abstract idea].”
- the “well-known concept” of “using categories to organize, store, and transmit information” is not patent-eligible
- \There is no requirement that the district court engage in claim construction before deciding § 101 eligibility.\
- \[T]he category of patent-ineligible abstract ideas is not limited to methods that can be performed in the human mind\
- the “well-known concept” of “using categories to organize, store, and transmit information” is not patent-eligible
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Dyk, Lourie, Wallach
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
27 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.D. Delaware· 2014-10-30· cited 20×
- In re TLI Communications LLC Patent LitigationE.D. Virginia· 2015-02-06· cited 20×
- Epic IP LLC v. Backblaze, Inc.D. Delaware· 2018-11-26· cited 19×
- Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Xilinx Inc.N.D. California· 2016-06-09· cited 12×
- Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLCW.D. Texas· 2015-07-07· cited 11×
- Bascom Research, LLC v. Linkedin, Inc.N.D. California· 2015-01-05· cited 10×
- Morsa v. Facebook, Inc.C.D. California· 2014-12-23· cited 8×
- MicroStrategy Inc. v. Apttus Corp.E.D. Virginia· 2015-07-17· cited 8×
- Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co.W.D. Pennsylvania· 2015-09-25· cited 6×
- Broadband ITV, Inc. v. Oceanic Time Warner Cable, LLCD. Hawaii· 2015-09-29· cited 6×
- Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United StatesFederal Claims· 2015-07-20· cited 5×
- Esoterix Genetic Laboratories LLC v. Qiagen Inc.D. Massachusetts· 2015-09-25· cited 5×
- France Telecom S.A. v. Marvell Semiconductor Inc.N.D. California· 2014-04-14· cited 4×
- Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp.D. Maryland· 2015-09-02· cited 3×
- SkillSurvey, Inc. v. Checkster LLCE.D. Pennsylvania· 2016-03-31· cited 3×
- Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Apple Inc.D. Delaware· 2016-10-31· cited 3×
- Tele-Publishing, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.D. Massachusetts· 2017-05-11· cited 3×
- Broadsoft, Inc. v. Callwave Commc'ns, LLCD. Delaware· 2017-10-01· cited 3×
- Appistry, Inc. v. Amazon.Com, Inc.W.D. Washington· 2016-07-19· cited 2×
- Genetic Veterinary Sciences, Inc. v. Canine EIC Genetics, LLCD. Minnesota· 2015-03-31· cited 1×
Cites
16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.Supreme Court· 2012-03-20· cited 915×
- Bilski v. KapposSupreme Court· 2010-06-28· cited 573×
- Diamond v. DiehrSupreme Court· 1981-03-03· cited 498×
- Gottschalk v. BensonSupreme Court· 1972-11-20· cited 442×
- Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. Of Canada (u.s.)Federal Circuit· 2012-07-26· cited 249×
- CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.Federal Circuit· 2011-08-16· cited 200×
- In Re BilskiFederal Circuit· 2008-10-30· cited 198×
- Accenture Global Services v. Guidewire Software, Inc.Federal Circuit· 2013-09-05· cited 177×
- SiRF Technology, Inc. v. International Trade CommissionFederal Circuit· 2010-04-12· cited 142×
- Dealertrack, Inc. v. HuberFederal Circuit· 2012-01-20· cited 134×
- CLS Bank International v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.Federal Circuit· 2013-05-10· cited 121×
- United States v. Great American InsuranceFederal Circuit· 2013-12-27· cited 80×
- In Re ComiskeyFederal Circuit· 2009-01-13· cited 62×
- Fort Properties, Inc. v. American Master Lease LLCFederal Circuit· 2012-02-27· cited 34×
- In Re Rex D. Schrader and Eugene D. KlingamanFederal Circuit· 1994-05-05· cited 28×
- Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. Cellco PartnershipD. Delaware· 2012-08-16· cited 14×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.