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 Topics
Related Articles
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions