United States: Fractured Court Holds Computer-Implemented System, Method, And Computer-Readable Media Claims Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101

In CLS Bank International v. Alice Corp., No. 11-1301 (Fed. Cir. May 10, 2013) (en banc), the Federal Circuit, upon consideration en banc, affirmed the district court's grant of SJ in favor of CLS Bank International and CLS Services Ltd. (collectively "CLS Bank"), finding that method and computer-readable media claims directed to risk management for computerized trading are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  No majority of the judges, however, agreed as to the legal rationale for that conclusion.  In addition, the Court was evenly split on the patent eligibility of the system claims. 

Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. ("Alice") is the owner of the patents-in-suit, which include U.S. Patent Nos. 5,970,479 ("the '479 patent"); 6,912,510 ("the '510 patent"); 7,149,720 ("the '720 patent"); and 7,725,375 ("the '375 patent").  The four related patents-in-suit are directed to "the management of risk relating to specified, yet unknown, future events."  Slip op. at 3 (citation omitted).  Specifically, the patents-in-suit include system, method, and media claims directed to a computerized trading platform that enables a trusted third party to settle obligations between first and second parties in a manner that eliminates a "settlement risk" associated with a transaction.

CLS Bank sued Alice, seeking DJ of noninfringement, invalidity, and enforceability as to the '479, '510, and '720 patents.  Alice filed a counterclaim, alleging infringement of the '479, '510, and '720 patents.  CLS Bank subsequently moved for SJ, contending that the asserted claims of the '479, '510, and '720 patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  Alice opposed and cross-moved for SJ.  Following the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), cert. granted sub. nom. Bilski v. Doll, 129 S. Ct. 2735 (June 1, 2009), the district court denied the parties'
cross-motions for SJ as to subject matter eligibility without prejudice.

In the meantime, the '375 patent issued and Alice filed amended counterclaims additionally asserting that CLS Bank infringed the claims of the '375 patent.  After the Supreme Court's decision in Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010), the parties renewed their cross-motions for SJ, and CLS Bank added invalidity contentions under § 101 with regard to the '375 patent.  The district court granted CLS Bank's motion for SJ and denied Alice's cross-motion, holding that the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit were invalid for failing to claim patent-eligible subject matter under § 101.  Alice appealed.

On appeal, in a per curiam decision, a majority of the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision that the asserted method and computer-readable media claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  An equally divided Court affirmed the district court's holding that the asserted system claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under the same statute.

Judge Lourie wrote a concurring opinion, which Judges Dyk, Prost, Reyna, and Wallach joined.  Before reviewing foundational § 101 precedent, Judge Lourie explained the basic steps in a patent-eligiblity analysis:  (1) ask whether the claimed invention falls within one of the statutory categories, i.e., is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.  If not, the claim is ineligible under § 101; (2) if so, determine whether the claim is drawn to a patent-ineligible law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea?  If so, the claim is not patent eligible.

"[W]e conclude that the district court correctly held that the asserted claims drawn to methods, computer-readable media, and systems are not patent eligible and are hence invalid under § 101."  Lourie Concurrence at 23.

"[I]f all of these claims, including the system claims, are not patent-eligible, this case is the death of hundreds of thousands of patents, including all business method, financial system, and software patents as well as many computer implemented and telecommunications patents."  Moore Dissent-in-Part at 2.

Turning first to the asserted method claims, Judge Lourie found claim 33 of the '479 patent representative.  Claim 33 recites a method for facilitating a previously arranged exchange between two parties requiring the use of "shadow records" maintained by a third-party "supervisory institution."  Lourie Concurrence at 25.  The shadow records mirror the parties' real-world accounts held at their respective "exchange institutions."  Id.  Although claim 33 does not expressly recite any computer-based steps, the parties agreed that the recited shadow records and transactions require computer implementation.

Judge Lourie found that claim 33 of the '479 patent recites a process and questioned whether that process amounts to no more than a patent-ineligible abstract idea.  Judge Lourie explained that the concept of reducing settlement risk by facilitating a trade through third-party intermediation is an abstract idea because it is a "disembodied" concept that, standing alone, is not patent eligible.  Id. at 26.  Judge Lourie's analysis, therefore, turned to whether the balance of claim 33 adds "significantly more."  Id.  Judge Lourie found nothing in the asserted method claims represents "significantly more" than the underlying abstract idea for purposes of § 101.  Id. at 25-26.  Accordingly, Judge Lourie found that the method claims of the patents-in-suit are drawn to patent-ineligible subject matter and invalid under § 101.

Judge Lourie further concluded that the computer-readable medium claims of the asserted patents are merely method claims in the guise of a device and thus do not overcome the Supreme Court's warning to avoid permitting a "competent draftsman" to endow abstract claims with patent-eligible status.  Id. at 31.  Turning to the asserted system claims of the patents-in-suit, Judge Lourie concluded that they represent nothing more than a "Trojan horse" designed to enable abstract claims to slide through the screen of patent eligibility.  Id. at 33-34. 

Judge Rader, concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part, explained that the relevant inquiry in the § 101 analysis must be whether a claim as a whole includes "meaningful limitations" that restrict it to an application, rather than merely an abstract idea.  Rader Concurrence-in-Part and Dissent-in-Part at 2.  When making such an inquiry, Judge Rader emphasized that a court cannot go hunting for abstractions by ignoring the concrete, palpable, tangible limitations of the invention the patentee actually claims. 

In drawing a line between claims that do and do not include such "meaningful limitations," Judge Rader identified useful "guideposts" within the Supreme Court's own case law.  Id. at 17.  In particular, with respect to computer-implemented inventions, Judge Rader explained that where a claim is tied to a computer in such a way that the computer plays a meaningful role in the performance of the claimed invention, and the claim does not preempt virtually all uses of an underlying abstract idea, the claim is patent eligible.

Applying these guideposts to the patents-in-suit, Judge Rader found that the asserted system claims recite complex interrelated machine components that squarely fit within the terms of § 101 and involve nothing theoretical, highly generalized, or otherwise abstract.  For at least these reasons, Judge Rader, joined by Judges Moore, Linn, and O'Malley, would affirm that the asserted system claims are patent eligible. 

Turning to the asserted method claims, Judge Rader found that each method claim as a whole embraces using escrow to avoid risk of one party's inability to pay, i.e., an abstract concept.  Thus, Judge Rader and Judge Moore would affirm that the asserted method and media claims are not eligible for patenting, but for reasons different than those articulated by Judge Lourie.  Judges Linn and O'Malley wrote separately with regard to these latter claims.  For these reasons, Judge Rader, joined by Judges Moore, Linn, and O'Malley, would remand for additional proceedings.

Judge Moore, dissenting-in-part, observed that her colleagues erroneously apply Prometheus's "inventive concept" language by stripping away all known elements from the asserted system claims and analyzing only whether what remains, as opposed to the claim as a whole, is an abstract idea.  Moore Dissent-in-Part at 6.  According to Judge Moore, the only way to determine if Alice's asserted system claims are merely directed to an abstract idea is to analyze each claim as a whole, looking at the language of the claims.  Applying such an approach, Judge Moore concluded that the asserted system claims are directed not to an abstract idea, but to a specific machine configured to perform certain functions, and, as such, Judge Moore concluded that the asserted system claims are patent eligible under § 101.  Judge Moore cautioned that "if all of these claims, including the system claims, are not patent-eligible, this case is the death of hundreds of thousands of patents, including all business method, financial system, and software patents as well as many computer implemented and telecommunications patents."  Id at 2.

Judge Newman, concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part, observed that the Court's irresolution concerning § 101 affects not only the Court and the trial courts, but also PTO examiners and agency tribunals, and all who invent and invest in new technology.  In view of the present impasse, Judge Newman proposed that the Court return to the time-tested principles of patent law and recommended that the Court hold that (1) § 101 is an inclusive statement of patent-eligible subject matter; (2) the form of the claim does not determine § 101 eligibility; and (3) experimental use of patented information is not barred. 

Judges Linn and O'Malley, in a dissenting opinion, emphasized that the method, media, and system claims of the patents-in-suit must rise and fall together, not because they are tainted by the same abstract concept, but because the record makes clear that they are grounded by the same meaningful limitations that render them patent eligible.  In Judges Linn and O'Malley's view, no intellectually sound way exists to distinguish the method claims as construed by the district court from the system claims.  Thus, Judges Linn and O'Malley found the asserted system claims, as well as the method and media claims, patent eligible.

Judge Rader, in an additional reflection, counsels us that "[w]hen all else fails, consult the statute!"  Rader Additional Reflections at 4.

Judges: Rader (concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part, with additional reflections), Newman (concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part), Lourie (concurring), Linn (concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part), Dyk (concurring), Prost (concurring), Moore (concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part), O'Malley (concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part), Reyna (concurring), Wallach (concurring)
[Appealed from D.D.C., Judge Collyer]

This article previously appeared in Last Month at the Federal Circuit, June 2013

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Events from this Firm
25 Sep 2017, Speaking Engagement, New York, United States

Finnegan partner Jason Stach will participate in the panel discussion “The Final Written Decision, Rehearing & Appeals to the CAFC” at Practising Law Institute’s program, USPTO Post-Grant Patent Trials.

26 Sep 2017, Speaking Engagement, New Orleans, United States

Finnegan attorneys Beth Ferrill and Clara Jimenez will participate in the panel discussion “Don’t Leave Valuable IP Unprotected - Design Patents in the Wearable Market” at the Industrial Fabrics Association International Expo.

27 Sep 2017, Seminar, Louisiana, United States

Finnegan is a Silver sponsor of the 13th annual Corporate Counsel Women of Color Career Strategies Conference.

 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.