United States: Will the Supreme Court Save Business Method Patents? Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, No. 13-298

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l (No. 13-298) to decide "[w]hether claims to computer-implemented inventions . . . are directed to patent-eligible subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101." The government and practitioners alike hope that the Court's decision will finally clarify the "abstract ideas" exception under Section 101. Based on the questions posed at oral argument, a number of Justices appeared to be troubled about the patent eligibility of Alice's asserted claims directed to intermediated settlements.


Alice's patents relate to a computerized trading platform for exchanging obligations. Typically, these transactions require parties to exchange an obligation at a future date. To avoid the "settlement risk" that one of the exchanging parties may not perform the exchange, the patented invention makes use of "shadow accounts" that correspond to the parties' real-world bank accounts. These shadow accounts are adjusted on a real-time basis to reflect the parties' obligations. Because parties may only enter into obligations that they can settle later according to their shadow accounts, the patented invention eliminates settlement risk. When it is time to settle and honor the obligations, the patented invention issues irrevocable instructions to require the parties' bank accounts to make the required transfers.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that Alice's method, computer-readable medium, and system claims were invalid as directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. A three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit initially reversed the district court's decision.


After rehearing en banc, a fractured Federal Circuit issued a 135-page opinion. In a one-page precedential per curiam decision, the appellate court summarily affirmed the trial court's holding that the patent was unpatentable. The decision also contained seven separate opinions—none of which commanded a majority, and each of which proposed different tests for determining patent eligibility under Section 101. Seven out of ten judges concluded that the asserted method and computer-readable medium claims were patent-ineligible under § 101. Five of those seven, in turn, concluded that the system claims also were patent-ineligible.

Judge Lourie proposed a "significantly more" test that begins by removing the "abstract idea" from the claim. The remainder is then analyzed to determine if it "contains additional substantive limitations that narrow, confine, or otherwise tie down the claim so that, in practical terms, it does not cover the full abstract idea itself." Under Judge Lourie's test, human contributions that are "merely tangential, routine, well-understood, or conventional, or in practice fail to narrow the claim relative to the fundamental principles therein, cannot confer patent eligibility."

Chief Judge Rader proposed a "meaningful limitations" test that asks whether the claim as a whole "includes meaningful limitations restricting it to an application, rather than merely an abstract idea." For computer-implemented claims, the question is "whether the claims tie the otherwise abstract idea to a specific way of doing something with a computer, or a specific computer for doing something; if so, they likely will be patent eligible, unlike claims directed to nothing more than the idea of doing that thing on a computer."


The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether "claims to computer-implemented inventions—including claims to systems and machines, processes, and items of manufacture—are directed to patent-eligible subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101."

A. Alice's Arguments

Alice contends that its asserted claims do not recite an abstract idea or, if they do, "are directed to a specific application of that idea—not to the idea itself." Per Alice, "abstract ideas" are "preexisting fundamental truths, such as mathematical formulas that are 'equivalent' to a law of nature and that 'exist' in principle apart from any human action." "Computer-implemented inventions that do not preempt use of a mathematical formula or other fundamental truth are [patent] eligible." To decide whether the abstract idea exception applies, Alice proposes that the claims be reviewed in their "totality." Alice's position is supported, in whole or in part, by four amicus briefs, including briefs by the Intellectual Property Owners Association and Advanced Biological Laboratories.

B. CLS's Arguments

CLS contends that Alice's claims are patent-ineligible under Section 101 "because they attempt to monopolize the abstract idea of intermediated settlement." According to CLS, "an abstract idea is a building block of technology, of innovation, and of the economy." CLS agrees with Judge Lourie that the ultimate question is whether the computer-implemented limitations add "significantly more" to the otherwise ineligible abstract idea. Reciting "only off-the-shelf computer components performing routine conventional functions . . . neither add[s] to nor subtract[s] from patent eligibility." CLS's position is supported, in whole or in part, by seventeen amicus briefs, including briefs by Google Inc. and Microsoft Corp.

C. Government's Arguments

The United States submitted an amicus brief supporting CLS, but taking a more aggressive stance against the patent-eligibility of business-methods. The government argues that "claims directed to the manipulation of abstract concepts or relationships, such as methods of organizing transactions and other human activities, are patent-ineligible under the abstract-idea exception to Section 101." Under the government's interpretation of Section 101, "an otherwise-abstract claim does not become patent-eligible merely because it incorporates a general-purpose computer to perform standard computing functions." For business transactions and other human activities facilitated by a computer, "the question is whether the computer imposes a meaningful limitation on the claim, such that the claim may be said to be directed to an innovation in computing or other technical fields instead of to a generalized use of computing power to implement an abstract method of organizing concepts and relationships."


A. Patent-Ineligibility of Alice's Claims

Although the Justices' questions at oral argument are not necessarily predictive of how they will decide a case, five Justices—Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy, Sotomayor, and Kagan—appeared to question seriously whether Alice's claims are directed to an abstract idea and are thus patent-ineligible under Section 101. Justice Ginsburg, for example, asked how an intermediated settlement is less of an abstract idea than hedging, which the Bilski Court previously held to be an abstract idea. Justice Breyer questioned why is it "less abstract that the computer says, stop," as opposed to King Tut's "abacus guy" tracking the king's gold or Justice Breyer's mother managing his checkbook. Justice Kennedy emphasized that "the innovative aspect [in Alice's idea] is certainly not in the creation of the program to make that work," as that would be "fairly easy to program." Justice Sotomayor queried why implementing Alice's claimed functions through a computer can make it "something new and not [a] function." Justice Kagan asked whether Alice's claims, aside from being implemented on a computer, are patentable.

B. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia Appear to Defend System Claims

Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia asked questions suggesting less skepticism of Alice's system claims. Justice Scalia asked "why . . . doing it through a computer" is not enough. Justice Scalia questioned whether a contrary rule would mean that "the cotton gin was not an invention because [it involved] doing through a machine what people used to do by hand." Justice Scalia asked whether the Court's precedent held only "that you can't take an abstract idea and then say use a computer to implement it," not "that you can't take an abstract idea and then say here is how you use a computer to implement it." (Emphasis added.) Chief Justice Roberts asked whether the patent-eligibility of system claims should depend on whether the alleged abstract idea is "impractical without looking to do it on the computer."

C. Justices Hesitant to Sound Death Knell for Software or Business-Method Patents

The Justices generally appeared hesitant to adopt the government's argument to abolish business-method patents entirely. As Justice Sotomayor noted, the Court does not need to "announce a general rule with respect to software" to decide the case. Other Justices grappled with the scope of the government's argument. Justice Ginsburg asked whether the Solicitor General's view "would extinguish business-method patents and make all software ineligible for patent protection." Justice Breyer sought guidance on "what would the right words or examples be" if the Court went beyond the shell of patent-eligibility provided by Bilski and Mayo. Justice Breyer further asked whether there was a middle ground between abolishing software patents and making ideas implemented on computers patent-eligible.

At least some of the Justices, however, appeared to be prepared to abolish business-method patents. According to Justice Ginsburg, "four Justices of this Court" have disagreed with Alice's counsel that the legislative history demonstrates Congress's intent to allow the business methods to be patented. In response, Justice Scalia retorted that "four is not five."


Although the questions posed at oral argument are not necessarily predictive of outcomes, the majority of the Justices in the Alice case appear to be inclined to find Alice's claims to be patent-ineligible as directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlements. Differences in opinion may lead to a narrow ruling, however, that does not abolish business method patents entirely. A decision is expected by late June 2014.

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

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.

Richard S.J. Hung
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

*** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


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.