Federal Circuit· 7/20/2018

Interval Licensing LLC v. Aol, Inc.

Citations

896 F.3d 1335

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 claimed “attention manager” amounted to “a desired result (non-interfering display of two information sets) without any limitation on how to produce that result.”
holding that an \asserted improvement . . . [in] the presentation of information in conjunction with other information\ was \not an improvement rooted in computer technology\
holding that a “broad, re- sult-oriented” construction of a term encompassed a pa- tent-ineligible abstract concept rather than a technical improvement because “[i]nstead of claiming a solution for producing that result, the claim in effect encompasses all solutions”
explaining that a patent is not directed to a technical solution when it covers results without teaching how to obtain those results
finding abstract the “collection, organization, and display of two sets of information on a generic display device”
finding abstract a claim that “demands the production of a desired result . . . without any limitation on how to produce that result.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Taranto, Plager, Chen

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

39 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

33 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

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.