United States: Post-Alice Issuance Of Related Patent Does Not Inoculate Patent-In-Suit From Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 101

The Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), had a dramatic impact on so-called software patents and business-method patents. Following Alice, many such patents have been held invalid for claiming patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Recently, the District of Delaware considered a patent owner's argument that the patent-in-suit should not be held invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because the U.S. Patent Office issued another patent relating to the patent-in-suit after the Supreme Court's Alice decision. See Collarity, Inc. v. Google Inc., C.A. No. 11-1103-MPT, at 26 (D. Del. Nov. 25, 2015, Order). According to the patent owner, "the issuance of the [related] patent protects the [patent-in-suit] from [the] Section 101 challenge." Id. at 25. The Court, however, rejected this argument :

Were that fact determinative, [the patent owner's] position appears to be that any patent issued post-Alice would be inoculated from invalidity under Section 101. That is not the case. 'Whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a threshold inquiry to be determined as a matter of law [by the district court] in establishing the validity of the patent.

Id. at 25-26. The Court proceeded to grant a motion for summary judgment that the patent-in-suit was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

This decision is relevant to the merits of potential arguments that a patent owner may raise to discredit an invalidity challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 101. If you have any questions or wish to discuss how this decision may impact your business, please contact one of the authors below.   

This article is intended to provide information of general interest to the public and is not intended to offer legal advice about specific situations or problems. Brinks Gilson & Lione does not intend to create an attorney-client relationship by offering this information and review of the information shall not be deemed to create such a relationship. You should consult a lawyer if you have a legal matter requiring attention. For further information, please contact a Brinks Gilson & Lione lawyer.