State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
149 F.3d 1368 · 1998
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 20 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2016 · most notably Bilski v. Kappos (2010), Bilski v. Kappos (2010)
19 federal appellate · 20 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 101
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-Cross · Diamond v. Diehr · Gottschalk v. Benson · Diamond v. Chakrabarty
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e hold that the transformation of data ... by a machine through a series of mathematical calculations into a final share price, constitutes a practical application of a mathematical algorithm.” (emphases added)); Alappat, 33 F.3d at 1544 (”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Comiskey · In re Comiskey“Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Bilski · In Re Bilski“a machine, namely, a data processing system for managing a financial services configuration of a portfolio established as a partnership, which machine is made up of, at the very least, the specific structures disclosed in the written description and corresponding to the means-plus-function elements (a)-(g) recited in the claim.” Id. at 1372, 149 F.3d 1368 , 47 USPQ2d at 1600. The structures corresponding to the means-plus-function elements recited in claim 1 in State Street were”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.