Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• disregarding conclusory allegations regarding a patent claim’s inventive concept when evaluating a com- plaint under Rule 12(b)(6)
• finding claims 9 directed to abstract ideas even where a human could not complete the process at the same speed or 10 scope as the computer, and collecting cases
• finding 6 that the requirement of a processor configured to apply an abstract idea does not change 7 the focus of the asserted claims from being directed towards the abstract idea
• rejecting argument that “humans could not mentally engage in the ‘same claimed process’ because they could not perform ‘nanosecond comparisons’ and aggregate ‘result values with huge numbers of polls and members’”
• asserted claims organized in expected manner—data collection, followed by processing and reporting of result—did not supply inventive concept
• “We focus our analysis on those claims and limitations that . . . the patentee[] relies upon to argue that the asserted claims are patent eligible under § 101.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2023-07-14