Source: http://cafc.whda.com/tag/%C2%A7101/
Timestamp: 2018-01-17 08:57:39
Document Index: 55172569

Matched Legal Cases: ['§101', '§101', '§101', '§101', '§101', '§101']

§101 : CAFC Alert
AUTOMATED PROCESSES ARE NOT INELIGIBLE SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE PERFORMED ON A GENERAL PURPOSE COMPUTER
Sung-Hoon Kim | October 4, 2016
McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. et al.
Before Reyna, Taranto, and Stoll. Opinion by Reyna.
McRO appealed a grant of judgment on the pleadings under FRCP 12(c) that the asserted claims of 6,307,576 (“the ’576 patent”) and 6,611,278 (“the ’278 patent”) are invalid under §101 by the District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court held that the asserted claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter and are therefore invalid under under §101. However, the Federal Circuit reversed the decision and held that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and recite subject matter as a patentable process under §101 because an “order combination of claimed steps using unconventional rules” is not directed to an abstract idea and is therefore patent-eligible subject matter under §101.
Tags: §101 > automated process > judgment on the pleadings under FRCP 12(c) > preemption > technological improvement