In re Smith

815 F.3d 816, 118 U.S.P.Q.2d 1245 (2016)

From our private database of 47,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Smith

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
815 F.3d 816, 118 U.S.P.Q.2d 1245 (2016)

  • Written by Eric Miller, JD

Facts

Ray and Amanda Smith sought to patent a variation on the game of blackjack. The game called for the shuffling and dealing of conventional playing cards but changed the standard rules. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) examiner rejected the application on the ground that the claimed subject matter was not eligible for a patent. The PTO board of appeals affirmed. The Smiths appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, arguing that the use of physical cards removed the idea from pure abstraction.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Stoll, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 964,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 964,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,500 briefs, keyed to 1,006 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
  • AI-generated podcast version of every brief — listen on the go, between classes, or whenever reading isn’t an option. New

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 964,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,500 briefs - keyed to 1,006 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Patent

Key Terms

  • Statutory Subject MatterInventions that are nonobvious and novel may nonetheless be denied patent protection if they fall within an exclusion to patentable subject matter. Examples include laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.

Understand your casebook readings in seconds

Use our case briefs to comprehend your casebook readings faster, supplement your notes and outlines, and outshine your peers in class.

Get instant access to over 47,500+ expert-written case briefs in a searchable database keyed to 1,006 law school casebooks.

Case book preview
Start your free 7-day trial