Alice v. CLS Bank: A Unanimous Supreme Court Rules On When Computer Claims are Patent-Eligible Under 35 U.S.C. § 101

by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

On June 19, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13-298, addressing the question of when patents claiming aspects of computer software satisfy the patentable subject matter requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 101.  In yet another unanimous opinion (albeit one with a very short concurrence from three of the Justices) authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court ruled that the method, system and computer media claims under review all claimed an abstract idea and thus failed to meet the requirements for patentable subject matter.  As the Court stated, “merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” 

The High Court thus was able with one voice to resolve an issue that had utterly divided the en banc Federal Circuit, which famously could not produce any clear majority on the exact same question involving the exact same claims.  In so holding, the Court liberalized a major defense to patent claims drawn to computer media by stating clearly that the mere recitation of the use of a general purpose computer cannot transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.  However, the Court also left open the question of precisely what is an “abstract” idea in the context of software patents, suggesting that this issue may become a source of ongoing investigation by the lower courts.


The case began in 2007 when CLS filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability of Alice’s patents.  Alice countersued alleging infringement of its patents, which described a process in a computerized trading platform for two parties to conduct financial transactions, such as stock trades, which are then settled by a third party.  More specifically, the claims at issue related to a computerized scheme for mitigating “settlement risk” – i.e., the risk that only one party to an agreed-upon financial exchange will satisfy its obligation.  In particular, the claims were designed to facilitate the exchange of financial obligations between two parties by using a computer system as a third-party intermediary. 

In 2009, CLS filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that it could not infringe Alice’s patents because those patents were not eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, which reads:  “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”  The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted CLS’s motion in 2011, finding that Alice’s patent claims-at-issue were “directed to an abstract idea of employing an intermediary to facilitate simultaneous exchange of obligations in order to minimize risk.”  CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 768 F. Supp. 2d 221, 243 (D.D.C. 2011).

Alice appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  On July 9, 2012, a split panel of the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and held that the claims at issue covered patent-eligible subject matter.  The majority decision, written by Judge Richard Linn and joined by Judge Kathleen O’Malley, found that the claims were not drawn to mere “abstract ideas” but rather were directed to “practical applications of invention.”  CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 685 F.3d 1341, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

On October 9, 2012, the Federal Circuit granted CLS’s petition for an en banc rehearing  and vacated the panel opinion.  In its en banc order, the Federal Circuit asked the parties to file new briefs addressing the following two questions:

  • What test should the court adopt to determine whether a computer-implemented invention is a patent ineligible “abstract idea”; and when, if ever, does the presence of a computer in a claim lend patent eligibility to an otherwise patent-ineligible idea?
  • In assessing patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of a computer-implemented invention, should it matter whether the invention is claimed as a method, system, or storage medium; and should such claims at times be considered equivalent for § 101 purposes?

CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 484 F. App’x 559, 559-60 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (per curiam).

As reported in our Alert of May 16, 2013 [], the eventual Federal Circuit en banc decision revealed a deeply divided court that failed to provide a definitive standard for determining patent-eligible subject matter in the context of software or hardware.  The en banc panel issued six separate opinions that spanned a collective 135 pages and offered at least three different views on patent eligibility, with additional reflections by Chief Judge Randall Rader.  Because none of the opinions garnered majority support, all were non-precedential.

The Supreme Court’s Opinion

The parties petitioned for certiorari, which was granted, and numerous amici briefs were filed.  The Court issued its ruling last week.

Beginning with a citation to 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Court reiterated the 150 year old principle that the Patent Act contains an important exception:  laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.  The concern is pre-emption – namely, that monopolization of those tools rooted in scientific and technological work will tend to impede innovation more than promote it.  Of course, the Court also acknowledged that it must “tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law.”  Accordingly, the Court indicated that in applying the § 101 exception, it “must distinguish between patents that claim the ‘building block[s]’ of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something more, … thereby transforming them into a patent-eligible invention.”

The Court found many parallels between this case and its earlier decision in Mayo Collaborative Services, which addressed patent eligibility in the life sciences context.  The Court reiterated the framework it applied there for distinguishing between patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas and those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.  Under this framework, a court first determines whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.  If so, the Court then asks “what else is there in the claims before [the court that might render the claims patentable]?”  To answer that question, the Court considers the elements of each claim individually and as an ordered combination to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.  This is a search for an “inventive concept” – i.e., an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.

Applying these principles, the Court first concluded, drawing on its earlier precedent like Bilski, that Alice’s method claims were directed to a patent-ineligible concept because they were drawn to the abstract idea of the intermediated settlement.  The Court reasoned that the concept of intermediated settlement is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce, citing support from trade publications in 1896 and 2013.  In so ruling, the Court rejected the patent owner’s argument that given the presence of mathematical formulas in some of the Court’s earlier abstract-ideas precedents, the abstract-idea category is confined to preexisting, fundamental truths that exist in principle apart from any human action.  The Court nonetheless cautiously noted that it “need not labor to delimit the precise contours of the ‘abstract ideas’ category in this case,” because it found there was no meaningful distinction between the patent-ineligible concept of risk hedging in Bilski and the concept of intermediated settlement at issue here.

The Court next concluded that Alice’s method claims, which merely require generic computer implementation, failed to transform the identified abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.  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.  Significantly, “[t]he introduction of a computer into the claims does not alter the analysis” previously set forth in the second step of the Mayo Collaborative Services framework.  The Court was clear that its earlier precedent from cases like Flook stand for the proposition that the prohibition against patenting abstract ideas cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the idea to a particular technological environment.  All of the earlier Supreme Court cases demonstrated that the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.  Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to implement an idea on a computer, that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.  The fact that a computer necessarily exists in the physical realm, rather than the purely conceptual realm, is beside the point.  The relevant question is whether the claims under review do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer, and the Court found that they did not.  Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process was “purely conventional.”

Equally significantly, the Court found that the patent claims directed to a computer system and a computer-readable medium failed for substantially the same reasons.  The Court determined that none of the hardware recited by the system claims offered “a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers."  The Court thus easily resolved the issue that had so deeply divided the Federal Circuit:  namely, whether the type of patent claim (method vs. system vs. computer-readable media) affected the claim’s patent-eligibility.  The Supreme Court answered in the negative, as the Judge Lourie plurality had done at the en banc stage, finding that all the claims were patent-ineligible because “the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance.”  Notably, the Supreme Court did so in one page of discussion.

Three Justices, in a concurrence authored by Justice Sotomayor, would have gone further and held that all business method patents claim ineligible subject matter.  They did not, however, explain whether they would have treated Alice’s system or media claims the same as the method claims.

Practical Implications

In reaching such a definitive result, the Court endorsed its recent adoption of an “inventive concept” approach to patent eligibility in Mayo Collective Services.  In addition, the Court clearly articulated a process of claim analysis for courts to apply in segregating patent-ineligible claims to laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from claims to patent-eligible applications thereof.  This may open the door in future litigation to early resolution of affirmative defenses based on the patent-eligible subject matter requirement.  However, the question of exactly what is an abstract idea likely will continue to percolate in the district courts in cases involving software and hardware functionality.


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.

© Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.