ARTICLE
2 June 2015

A Practitioner's Guide To Section 101 Invalidity: Analyzing Abstract Concepts In The Wake Of Alice v. CLS Bank

W
WilmerHale

Contributor

WilmerHale provides legal representation across a comprehensive range of practice areas critical to the success of its clients. With a staunch commitment to public service, the firm is a leader in pro bono representation. WilmerHale is 1,000 lawyers strong with 12 offices in the United States, Europe and Asia.
Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, holding that inventions claiming mere computer implementation of an abstract concept are not patent eligible.
United States Intellectual Property

On June 19, 2014, the Supreme Court decided Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, holding that inventions claiming mere computer implementation of an abstract concept are not patent eligible. 1 This decision informs the analysis for identifying patent ineligible subject matter: A court first determines whether a disputed claim is directed to a law of nature, natural phenomena or abstract concept and, if so, then decides whether the claims as a whole, both individually and ''as an ordered combination,'' contain additional elements that '' 'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent eligible application."2 Courts have referred to this second step as a search for ''something more'' that confers patent eligibility.3 The concern driving this test is pre-emption—patent law must not grant monopolies over the ''building blocks of human ingenuity.''4

Please click here to read the full text/footnotes of this article

Originally published in Bloomberg BNA's Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, Vol. 90, No. 2215.

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More