Wildtangent, Inc. v. Ultramercial, LLC

How later courts describe this case

• concluding that “generic computer implementation” did not bring claims within section 101
• holding that the clear and convincing evidentiary standard applies to Section 101 challenges
• noting that “[the U.S. Supreme Court] need not labor to delimit the precise contours of the ‘abstract ideas’ category in this case”
• finding that the recitation of “specific hardware” consisting of a “data processing system,” a “communications controller,” and a “data storage unit” were “purely functional generic”
• noting that limiting an abstract, idea to computer implementation did not mitigate preemption concerns
• noting intermedi-ated settlement is a fundamental economic concept and a building block of the economy
• “[Limiting the use of an abstract idea ‘to a particular technological environment’ ” “is not enough for patent eligibility.”
• finding that intermediated settlement, like hedging, was an abstract idea