In denying a motion for summary judgment of invalidity under Section 101, the court stated: "An inability to articulate an abstract idea to which claims are directed may be a clue that those claims satisfy Section 101." The patent claims at issue related to management of online poker. Defendant challenged the validity based on lack of patentable subject matter under Section 101 in light of the recent Alice decision, alleging the claims related to the abstract idea of a "customer loyalty program direct to poker, " (i.e. a player rewards system within a poker room), without adding significantly more. The court refused to buy this argument because the independent claims did not even include a customer loyalty or compensation system.

It is always easy to say that a claim relates to an abstract idea, but that is not the proper legal test. The focused is on what is actually claimed. As stated in Alice, a claim that recites an abstract idea must include "additional features" to ensure "that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea]." To the extent the claims do recite an abstract the question is whether there are other ways to use the abstract idea.

Despite the furor over the Alice decision, properly drafted software and game patents are still patent eligible.