Appellate court decision: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/13-1021.Opinion.5-7-2014.1.PDF http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/storie

Appellate court decision: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/13-1021.Opinion.5-7-2014.1.PDF http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/... The appeals court looked to a decades-old "abstraction, filtration, comparison" test. In essence, that test requires the judge and jury to play the role of a patent examiner. See slip opinion at pages 23, 40. The expense and uncertainty aren't much fun for either party (or for the judge, jury, and law clerks for that matter). But yippee, say the IP litigators, because cases like this require lots of billable hours.