Fast 101 Pty. Ltd. v. Citigroup Inc.


Question(s) Presented

1. “When analyzing patent claims for subject matter eligibility ‘as a whole,’ does a court need to evaluate the differences between prior art allegations and the alleged inventive concept in order to fully appreciate the claim language selected by the patent drafter?”

2. “When the plaintiff alleges either that the claims are ‘directed to’ an ‘improvement’ or that the ‘inventive concept’ is found in an ‘ordered combination’ of claim elements, do the relevant steps of the Alice/Mayo Test become questions of fact because a technical analysis of prior art is required, thus precluding a 12(b)(6) dismissal?”

3. “Whether it is appropriate for a court to dismiss a complaint (and thus invalidate all asserted patents) using Rule 12(b)(6) without amendment to the complaint or oral argument by making factual findings and rejecting the plaintiff ’s detailed factual assertions inconsistent with Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).”

Posts About this Case

Proceedings and Orders
May 18, 2021
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/3/2021.
June 7, 2021
Petition DENIED.