United States: Alice Corp. V. CLS Bank: Did The Supreme Court Sign The Warrant For The "Death Of Hundreds Of Thousands Of Patents"?

Last Updated: June 23 2014
Article by Gregory Castanias, David M. Maiorana and Matthew W. Johnson

Many software and internet companies have secured patents to protect their technology investments. For some companies—especially startups—software or business-method patents may be their only valuable assets. In recent years, those kinds of patents have been attacked for being too abstract—and thus not eligible for a U.S. patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This trend has been welcome news for companies defending against software or business method patents in litigation, but at the same time, it presents challenges for companies seeking to patent, license, and enforce their innovations.

Over the last four years, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a series of decisions that have strengthened Section 101 as a weapon for patent challengers, including in such cases as Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010) and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc. 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012). On June 19, the Court issued another such opinion, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, holding that the computer-implemented patents at issue in that case were not eligible for patenting. This decision provides some guidance—but raises even more questions—for future Section 101 challenges to computer-implemented claims.

Background

Section 101 and computers had their first meeting in the Supreme Court in 1972, in a case called Benson v. Gottschalk. Even then, long before the ubiquity of computers, the difficulty of navigating the Section 101 patent-eligibility inquiry was plain. The figure below shows the evolution of this difficulty, starting with the Court's decision in Benson holding that computer-implemented claims for binary number conversion were not patent-eligible. Along with a later (1978) case, Parker v. Flook, there were serious doubts whether any software innovations could be patented.

Along came Diamond v. Diehr in 1981. Diehr held—notwithstanding Benson and Flook—that a computer-implemented process for curing rubber was patent eligible. Diehr signaled the beginning of a new era, in which the courts acknowledged that software innovations could be patented, but only a limited amount of software patenting occurred.

A year later, in 1982, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was created by Congress, with the explicitly stated purpose of bringing uniformity to the patent law in order to "strengthen the United States patent system in such a way as to foster technological growth and industrial innovation." And that court, when given the opportunity, made the patent environment more favorable to software patents. Between 1994, when the Federal Circuit decided In re Alappat, and 1998, when it handed down its decision in State Street Bank, the Federal Circuit's decisions ushered in a new era of hyperactivity in the area of software and business-method patents. This period of time also coincided with the "dot-com era" and the associated boom in the U.S. economy; indeed, the dot-com sector was engaged in an intense pursuit of business-method patents at this time.

An adjustment was inevitable, as many began to question the plethora of business-method and software patents being issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. And that adjustment came in the form of several subsequent decisions, starting in 2008 with the Federal Circuit's Bilski decision (affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2010), which used Section 101 of the Patent Act to curtail both software and business-method patents.

Against this backdrop, the courts tackled the financial-related computer patents of Alice Corporation. These patents relate to a computerized platform to eliminate risk in conducting financial transactions between two parties by using a neutral intermediary. The neutral intermediary, essentially an escrow, ensured that each party met its respective obligations before any obligations were actually exchanged.

Both the district court and the Federal Circuit found Alice's patent claims ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Federal Circuit heard the case en banc—meaning with all of its active judges, not just a three-judge panel, sitting to hear and decide the case—and issued a decision holding that Alice's patent claims were ineligible under Section 101. But the judges were unable to agree why this was the case. The decision was accompanied by hundreds of pages of opinions, authored by five different judges, but none commanding a majority of the 12-judge court. CLS Bank Int'l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc). Alice sought review from the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted last spring.

The Supreme Court's Two-Prong Analysis

The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Federal Circuit's decision that Alice's claims were ineligible because they "are drawn to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement" and "merely require [a] generic computer implementation [that] fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." The Supreme Court primarily relied on the Section 101 analytical framework outlined in Mayo (a case involving medical diagnostic methods) in affirming the Federal Circuit's plurality decision invalidating Alice's patent claims.

The Mayo framework asks two questions. First, are the claims at issue directed to "abstract ideas," "laws of nature," or "natural phenomena," each of which is categorically ineligible for patenting? One of the challenges in making this first inquiry, of course, is that every patent claim has an "idea," or a "law of nature," or a "natural phenomenon" (or some combination of the three) at its core. Another challenge, regularly present in cases (like Alice) that involve computerized or business-method patent claims, is that the Court has never provided a definition of what constitutes an "abstract idea." Instead, the Court was left to draw upon its prior decisions for examples:

  • Benson (1972): claims for an algorithm to convert binary coded decimal numerals into pure binary form constituted a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
  • Flook (1978): mathematical formula for computing "alarm limits" in a catalytic conversion process constituted a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
  • Bilski (2010): method for hedging against the financial risk of price fluctuations is a fundamental concept in economic practice and therefore constitutes a patent-ineligible abstract idea.

Using these decisions as a guide, the Court looked to Alice's claims and deemed them essentially indistinguishable from the business-method claims deemed ineligible in Bilski, because—like Bilski's "hedging" method—Alice's claims were drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk: "Like the risk hedging in Bilski, the concept of intermediated settlement is 'a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce.'" Accordingly, the Court concluded that Alice's claims are directed to an abstract idea.

The Court then turned to the second question asked by its recent Section 101 decisions: Do the claims contain an "inventive concept" that is sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application? The Court again turned to its earlier decision in Mayo for guidance: "Mayo made clear that transformation into a patent-eligible application requires 'more than simply stat[ing] the [abstract idea] while adding the words 'apply it.''"

Mayo was instructive in what type of transformation would be insufficient for the second prong. In Mayo, the claims involved methods for determining a patient's metabolite levels that were already "well known in the art." Simply appending conventional steps (i.e., steps "well known in the art"), specified at a high level of generality, was not "enough" in Mayo to supply an "inventive concept" that could transform the claims into a patent-eligible application.

Applying Mayo to Alice's claims, the Court reviewed each step of Alice's representative method claim and concluded that it did little more than say "implement this abstract idea using a general-purpose computer." For example, the step of "obtaining start-of-day balances based on the parties' real-world accounts at exchange institutions" constituted a "well-understood, routine, conventional" activity previously known to the industry and thus did not supply an "inventive concept" sufficient to show eligibility for patenting under Section 101.

The Court's 1981 decision in Diehr provided the Court with an opportunity to contrast, by example, what the Court viewed as necessary to show patent eligibility—the presence of a method step reciting nonconventional activities. In Diehr, a thermocouple device was used in a nonconventional way for recording temperature measurements within a rubber mold, thereby providing the needed "inventive concept." According to the Alice Court's interpretation of Diehr, the computer aspects of the patent claim (for reading temperature measurements of a rubber mold and repeatedly recalculating the remaining cure time) did not contribute to the patent-eligibility of the invention.

Mayo's second prong not only examines the claim elements individually but also "as an ordered combination." In Alice, viewing the representative claim as whole did not change the Court's conclusion; the claim did not solve a technological problem or improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other "technology or technical field." "Instead, the claims at issue amount to 'nothing significantly more' than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement using some unspecified, generic computer." According to the Court, "that is not 'enough' to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."

Alice's computer system and computer-readable medium claims suffered the same fate as its representative method claim. Despite the presence of hardware and computerized functions, the Court concluded that in essence the system and computer-readable medium claims merely recite generic and conventional computer components for implementing the same abstract idea as the representative claim. Accordingly, the Court found that these claims, too, lacked an "inventive concept" sufficient for patent eligibility.

The Future of Computer Software and Business Method Patents

At this point, the Alice opinion raises more questions than it answers:

Is this the End of Software Patents? One of the dissenting opinions from the Federal Circuit had predicted that its decision, if affirmed, would be "the death of hundreds of thousands of patents." While some patent claims may be invalidated based on the Mayo framework, as applied by the Supreme Court in Alice, it is unlikely that this decision is the death knell for all software patents. The Court made a point to note "that many computer-implemented claims are formally addressed to patent-eligible subject matter." Thus, the Court recognized that software claims that do improve the functioning of a computer or improve other technology or a technical field, as well as potentially other categories of software innovations, may be eligible for patent protection.

Will Business-Method Patent Claims Be Subjected to a Higher Level of Scrutiny than Other, More Technical Claims? In a concurring opinion, Justices Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer reiterated their stance from Bilski, where they (along with now-retired Justice Stevens) argued for a categorical rule that business-method claims are not patentable. While the Court's opinion in Alice does not expressly make a statement that heightened scrutiny should be applied, the observed result of Bilski and now Alice implies that a significant contingent of the Court is uncomfortable with any amount of patent protection for business-method inventions. When performing the initial "abstract idea" inquiry, it appears that the Court may lean in favor of finding an abstract idea when "business concepts" are involved. This, in effect if not in so many words, would create a higher bar for such patents. Companies pursuing protection for such subject matter should consider taking affirmative steps to tie their inventions to improvements of technology or technological fields.

What Will the Patent and Trademark Office, the Federal Circuit, and Lower Federal Courts Do with the Vague Tests Articulated by the Alice Court? Will they endeavor to give meaning to the term "abstract idea"? Will they seek to articulate the outer limits of an "inventive concept" and when additional steps will be "enough" to demonstrate that one is present? How much "more" is needed to satisfy the Court's unelaborated requirement, first announced in Mayo, that eligible patent claims must recite "significantly more" than just the ineligible law of nature (or abstract idea) and routine applications thereof?

How Will the Federal Circuit—in Future Cases—Address the Supreme Court's Application of the "Inventive Concept" Inquiry from Mayo to a Software/Business Method Patent? In the Federal Circuit's Alice decision, the court paid little attention to the "inventive concept" language of Mayo, with one opinion stating that those judges "do not read the [Supreme] Court's occasional use of [the 'inventive concept'] language in the § 101 context as imposing a requirement that such limitations must necessarily exhibit 'inventiveness' in the same sense as that term more commonly applies to two of the statutory requirements for patentability." The Supreme Court emphatically disagreed, holding that the second step of the patent-eligibility analysis requires an examination of "the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an 'inventive concept' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." Will the Federal Circuit take this instruction to heart in future cases?

Is this a Resurrection of the "Technological Arts Test"? At points across the history of software and business-method patents, the "technological arts test"—under which patents supposedly should not issue for claimed inventions falling outside the "technological arts"—arose as a possible measuring stick under Section 101. The Federal Circuit in In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008), found the technological arts test unworkable because the meanings of the terms "technological arts" and "technology" are disputed and ambiguous. In Alice, the Supreme Court at several points looked to the technological aspects of the claimed subject matter, including whether the claims address a technological problem. This implies that claims having a more significant technological foundation are more likely to recite patentable subject matter (consider, for example, the Court's statement that Alice's "claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself... [n]or do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field"). Thus, the Alice decision could represent the Court's acceptance of at least some aspects of the technological arts test.

What Does this Mean for Future Efforts to Prosecute and Obtain Patents in Related Areas? The Alice decision could present a challenge to those who prosecute patent applications in the software and business-method areas of technology. According to the Court, it is not sufficient to combine an abstract idea with a computer and simply "apply it." A major problem could exist for pending applications that lack sufficient disclosure regarding the details of advances to technology provided by an invention. Practitioners may need to adopt claim-drafting techniques that target a lower level of abstraction, including incorporating implementation details into claims that illustrate an improvement of the functioning of a computer, technology, or technical field provided by an invention.

How Will the Recent Retirement of Chief Judge Rader Affect the Section 101 Landscape at the Federal Circuit? Alice is by no means the first time that the Supreme Court has attempted to rein in the universe of patentable subject matter. Judge Rader was long seen as a leader of a largely pro-patent Federal Circuit that has sought to protect patent rights, many times in the face of Section 101 attacks. His June 30 retirement may change the playing field, with one of the most vocal proponents of a lower Section 101 bar leaving the arena. It remains to be seen whether the remaining Federal Circuit judges will be more deferential to the Supreme Court's guidance regarding subject matter eligibility going forward.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Alice is significant because for the first time in more than 30 years, the Supreme Court has expressly ruled on what types of computer-implemented patent claims can satisfy the patent-eligibility requirements of Section 101.

The computer industry has changed enormously over those 30 years. This change has not only included incredible technological advancements but also how the computer industry has decided to legally protect its core assets. Numerous software companies, especially start-up companies, have secured software and business-method patents and rely upon them as significant assets for enforcement, licensing, financing, and other purposes. These companies and their patent attorneys will be studying this decision to understand what impact Alice will have on the value of their current software and business-method patent portfolios as well as how they should prepare and prosecute such cases in the future.

In the Federal Circuit Alice decision, Judge Moore predicted that their decision may result in "the death of hundreds of thousands of patents." It remains to be seen whether this prediction comes true as a result of the Supreme Court's affirmance.

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
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Davis & Gilbert
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Davis & Gilbert
Related Articles
 
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
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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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