In the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, the Court affirmed the invalidity of Alice’s patents for computer implemented methods of reducing settlement risk. This case reached the high court after a severely split Federal Circuit could not agree whether language of the claims met the patent-eligibility requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101. At the heart of this case was the Federal Circuit’s confusion over the impact of the Court’s 2012 decision, Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. In Mayo, Justice Breyer set forth a two-part test for determining whether a claim is directed to a patent-ineligible “abstract idea” and, if so, whether the claim also contains enough substance to amount to “significantly more than [the ineligible concept] itself.”
This test, however, resulted in muddle in the lower courts – it appeared to combine the patenteligibility analysis of § 101 with the novelty and non-obviousness analyses of §§ 102 and 103 in a way that contradicted the Court’s prohibition against doing so in Diamond v. Diehr. Further, Mayo was unclear on the extent to which physical components could be tied to an otherwise abstract claim in order to render the claim patent-eligible.
Please see full alert below fore more information.
Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.
We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.
Please choose one of the above to proceed!
LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.
Topics: Alice Corporation, CLS Bank, CLS Bank v Alice Corp, Mayo v. Prometheus, Patent Litigation, Patent-Eligible Subject Matter, Patents, Risk Mitigation, SCOTUS, Software
Published In: Civil Procedure Updates, Intellectual Property Updates, Science, Computers & Technology Updates
DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
© McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP | Attorney Advertising