1. 101 CAFC Panel Statistics 2016-2017 YTD
Doug Lumish
April 17, 2017

2. Fed. Cir. §101 written opinions since 2016: 32
The Basics
Fed. Cir. §101 written opinions since 2016: 32
6 found claims eligible; 26 ineligible
Reversals or reversals-in-part: 10
Most prolific author: Prost (5)
Most common panelists: Prost (12); Moore (10)
Dissenters:
Reyna (Amdocs) would have found ineligible
Stoll (IV/Symantec) would have found eligible

3. Evolutionary Intell. v. Sprint
The Details
CASE
Venue
101 INVALID?
Affirm/ Reverse
CAFC PANEL
Notes
Mentor v. EVE/Synopsys
Ore. Y A
Lourie, Moore, Chen
Decided on in re Nuijten; not std analysis
Louis v. NVIDIA
Prost, Bryson, Wallach (per curiam)
Clarilogic v. FormFree
S.D. Cal.
Lourie, Reyna, Chen
In re Salwan
PTAB
Prost, Mayer, Moore (per curiam)
Thales Visionix v. U.S.
Fed. Cls. N R
Moore, Wallach, Stoll
Reference of motion sensors to moving frame (eg, plane) instead of earth eligible even though uses equation
IV v. Capital One
Md.
Prost, Wallach, Chen
IV v. Erie
W.D. Penn.
Evolutionary Intell. v. Sprint
N.D. Cal.
Lourie, Moore, Taranto
SmartFlash v. Apple
E.D. Tex.
Prost, Newman, Lourie
Trading Techs. v. CQG
N.D. Ill.
Newman, O’Malley, Wallach
“Specific” GUI for displaying stock trade information
Apple v. Ameranth
A and R
Reyna, Chen, Stoll
Reversed all findings where claims eligible
Tranxition v. Lenovo
Prost, Reyna, Chen
Amdocs v. Openet
E.D. Va.
Newman, Plager, Reyna
Reyna dissent
Synopsys v. Mentor
FairWarning v. Iatric
M.D. Fla.
Lourie, Plager, Stoll
IV v. Symantec
Del.
Dyk, Mayer, Stoll
Reversed for patent held eligible; Mayer concurrence: software ineligible; Stoll dissent: rev’d patent eligible

4. The Details Venue 101 INVALID? Affirm/ Reverse CAFC PANEL Notes CASE
Affinity Labs v. Amazon
W.D. Tex. Y A
Prost, Bryson, Wallach
Affinity Labs v. DIRECTV
McRo v. Bandai
C.D. Cal. N R
Reyna, Taranto, Stoll
“Combined order of specific rules” for animated lip sync
TDE Petroleum v. AKM
S.D. Tex.
Lourie, Wallach, Hughes
In re Chorna
PTAB
Prost, Wallach, Hughes (per curiam)
Elec. Power Grp. V. Alstom
Taranto, Bryson, Stoll
Lending Tree v. Zillow
W.D.N.YC.
Moore, Schall, O’Malley
Shortridge v. Foundation
N.D. Cal.
O’Malley, Linn, Stoll (per curiam)
Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. Cellzdirect
N.D. Ill.
Prost, Moore, Stoll
Separating and re-freezing heaptocytes
Bascom v. AT&T
N.D. Tex.
Newman, O’Malley, Chen
Ordered combo of elements (filtering at ISP) is inventive concept (at 12(b)(6) stage)
TLI v. AV Automotive
E.D. Va.
Dyk, Schall, Hughes
Enfish v. Microsoft
Moore, Taranto, Hughes
112(6) claims for a “self- referential” database
In re Brown
Prost, Moore, Stoll (per curiam)
Genetic Techs. v. Merial
Del.
Prost, Dyk, Taranto
In re Smith
Moore, Hughes, Stoll
Mort. Grader v. First Choice Loan
O’Malley, Taranto, Stark
J. Stark (Del.) sitting by designation

5. 101 CAFC Panel Statistics 2016-2017 YTD
Doug Lumish
April 17, 2017