United States: The Supreme Court's Decision In Alice Corp. V. CLS Bank Has Taken A Heavy Toll On Patents For Computer-Related Inventions

The patent statue broadly defines patent-eligible subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter" and any improvements.  But inventors cannot patent laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.  The prohibition on patenting abstract ideas has caused federal courts to declare hundreds of patents for computer-related inventions invalid since the Supreme Court's June 2014 decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank.  After Alice, about 70% of challenges for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter have succeeded.

In Alice, the Supreme Court articulated a two-step process for assessing patent-eligible subject matter in the context of computer-related inventions.  Initially, determine whether the patent claim at issue is directed to an abstract idea.  If so, consider whether the claim elements individually or in combination "transform" the claim into a patent-eligible invention.  The Court described the second step as a search for an "inventive concept" to ensure that the patent amounts to "significantly more" than an abstract idea.

For the second step, the Supreme Court in Alice explained that "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."  Further, according to the Court, claiming well-understood, routine, and conventional features specified at a high level of generality does not suffice for an "inventive concept."  But the Court provided little guidance beyond those somewhat extreme examples.  In addition, the Court did not "labor to delimit the precise contours of the 'abstract ideas' category."

Absent clear guidance from the Supreme Court, lower courts have at times had difficulty determining what constitutes an abstract idea and what amounts to an inventive concept.  For example, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has said, "Distinguishing between claims that recite a patent-eligible invention and claims that add too little to a patent-ineligible abstract concept can be difficult, as the line separating the two is not always clear."  Similarly, District Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas, who has more patent cases on his docket than any other judge, has remarked, "[T]he contours are often unclear between those inventions that are directed to an abstract idea and those that are not."  Another district judge has likened the analysis to Justice Stewart's famous statement concerning obscenity: hard to define "[b]ut I know it when I see it."

Complicating matters, the Supreme Court has observed that all inventions at some level "embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas."  One district judge has noted that "any claim, described at a certain level of generality, can be challenged as directed to an abstract idea."

A review of decisions concerning computer-related inventions shows a trend.  A court's characterization of the patented technology often determines the patent-eligibility result.  For instance, if a court describes the underlying concept broadly, it will likely decide that the patent claims only an abstract idea.

As an example, in OIP Technologies v. Amazon.com, OIP asserted a patent claiming a "method of pricing a product for sale" comprising several steps, including generating statistics concerning test prices, estimating likely outcomes for various potential prices based on the statistics, and selecting a price based on the estimated outcomes.  The Federal Circuit decided that "the claims are directed to the concept of offer-based price optimization."  After describing the underlying concept broadly, the court reasoned that "[b]eyond the abstract idea of offer-based price optimization, the claims merely recite . . . conventional computer activities or routine data-gathering steps."  Hence, the court held the asserted patent invalid because it did not claim patent-eligible subject matter.

As another example, in Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One, Intellectual Ventures alleged infringement of claims concerning an "apparatus for manipulating XML documents" comprising "a processor," "a user interface," and six "components" that organized, identified, mapped, defined, detected modification of, and modified data in XML documents.  When addressing the first step in the patent-eligibility analysis, the district court said, "[T]he patent is, at its core, directed to the abstract idea of organizing, displaying, and manipulating data related to business documents."  When addressing the second step, the court concluded that the processor and the user interface did "not transform the abstract idea into a patent-worthy inventive concept."

Alice has taken a heavy toll on patents for computer-related inventions, particularly software patents.  The patent claims that have weathered the storm have usually done so by including meaningful limitations that sufficiently narrow their scope.

For instance, the Federal Circuit in DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com upheld the validity of a patent covering systems and methods for retaining website visitors.  The patents addressed a problem occurring when a third-party merchant advertised on a host website:  Visitors to the host website were transported the third-party merchant's website when they clicked on the merchant's advertisement on the host website.  The patents solved that problem by creating a new, composite website displaying the merchant's product information but keeping the host website's "look and feel."  The composite website gave a visitor the impression of viewing pages served by the host website.

In DDR, the Federal Circuit concluded that the claim elements taken together as an ordered combination amounted to an inventive concept for resolving a particular Internet-centric problem, and thus recited patent-eligible subject matter.  The court reasoned that the claims at issue did "not attempt to preempt every application of the idea of increasing sales by making two web pages look the same" but instead covered "a specific way to automate" composite web page creation by incorporating content from multiple sources "to solve a problem faced by websites on the Internet."

In upholding the validity of the claims at issue, however, the Federal Circuit cautioned that "that not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible for patent."  When considering patents for computer-related inventions after Alice, the Federal Circuit has, except in DDR, decided that the challenged claims did not recite patent-ineligible subject matter.

Further, the Federal Circuit in a later decision limited DDR when addressing a patent relating to "customizing web page content as a function of navigation history and information known about the user."  The court viewed that customizing as analogous to tailoring advertising content based on customer location and time of day, which it considered long prevalent and known "for decades."  The court noted that in DDR the patent "provided an Internet-based solution to solve a problem unique to the Internet."  The court then said, "The patent claims here do not address problems unique to the Internet, so DDR has no applicability."  Because the claims at issue recited "conventional computer components . . . operating in a conventional manner," the court decided that they lacked an inventive concept.

Nevertheless, the Federal Circuit's decision in DDR supplies guidance for patents addressing problems unique to computers or the Internet.  For instance, in DataTern v. Microstrategy, the district court considered a patent with claims covering a "method of interfacing an object oriented software application with a relational database" and found them eligible for patent protection.  Citing DDR, the court reasoned that the "patent is directed at solving a problem that specifically arises in the realm of computing; indeed, object-oriented programs exist only in the realm of computers, and relational databases are utilized primarily, if not exclusively, on computers."  The court then ruled that the claims "appear to be sufficiently limited in scope as to supply an 'inventive concept.'"

Similarly, in California Institute of Technology v. Hughes Communications, the district court considered patents with method and apparatus claims relating to error correction in transmitted data.  When addressing the first step in the patent-eligibility analysis, the court determined that the claims were "directed to the abstract idea of encoding and decoding data for the purpose of achieving error correction."  But when addressing the second step, the court decided that the claims contained "meaningful limitations" representing "sufficiently inventive concepts."  The court based that decision on claim limitations specifying particular ways to achieve encoding and decoding.

Many unexpired software patents were granted before Supreme Court's decision in Alice.  Before filing a lawsuit alleging infringement of a software patent, the patent owner should scrutinize the claims in light of Alice.

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.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
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