Insights
Publications

Court Hears Arguments on Patent Eligibility of Computer-Implemented Invention

2/13/2013 Articles

On Friday, February 8, the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments en banc in CLS Bank v. Alice Corp. (Case No. 2011-1301), a closely watched dispute regarding the standard for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  The Federal Circuit had previously granted CLS Bank’s petition for rehearing en banc on two questions:  (1) 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?; and (2) 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?

Here are a few highlights from the arguments:

  • Generally, the questioning focused primarily on how to determine whether a patent claims an abstract idea, and how or when a computer, when combined with a potentially abstract idea, would result in a patent-ineligible claim.  CLS defined an unpatentable abstract idea as one that can be performed in the mind or just with a pencil and paper (as in CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)), noting that, in the computer context, merely stating the abstract principle and adding the words “compute it” does not make a claim patent eligible.  Alice defined the test as whether the patent claim, as a whole, claimed “significantly more” than just an abstract idea.  For example, Alice asserted that the test should be whether “the patentee applied computer technology in some practical way such that it is not just a claim to an abstract idea, but to an application of that idea.”  Alice’s proposal mirrors one of the suggestions raised by the software industry at the recent Software Patent Forum for reforming software patents being held by the USPTO. 
  • There seemed to be a consensus that the mere use of a computer to perform basic calculations, or to perform some other token post-solution function, is not patentable (e.g., Alice distinguished between a computer that plays “a significant role in permitting the claimed invention to be performed” and one that is “simply there to do a calculation faster, or simply there to print out a result.”).  There also appeared to be agreement that, generally, a computer that is specially designed to perform a particular function could be patentable.  In this respect, the Court’s position seems consistent with the earlier § 101 cases from the Federal Circuit (e.g., CyberSource), suggesting that this en banc panel will not be creating any bright-line test like the infamous “machine-or-transformation” test, but instead, will favor a more flexible patent-by-patent, claim-by-claim approach.    
  • Much of the rest of the discussion focused on CLS’s characterization of the patent claims, with a particular focus on the system claims, and whether the form of the claim affected its patent eligibility.  Judge Moore was skeptical of CLS’s argument that one of the system claims at issue (claim 26 of the ‘375 patent)—which recited several “tangible” components of a system, including a computer—recited an abstract idea.  Judge Linn noted that “every claim in every patent can be distilled down to some essential summary . . . but that is not the way we assess . . . patent eligibility.”  The questioning suggested that the Court may view the recitation of physical components to form a special purpose computer to be sufficient for § 101 patent eligibility.  If this remains true, this raises an interesting question of whether Beauregard claims will become even more popular because they recite “tangible” elements in the form of computer-readable code in a storage medium without imposing additional structural limitations. 
  • There was some discussion of the scope of, and interplay between, §§ 101, 102, and 103.  The Court queried whether § 101 issues should properly be decided before §§ 102 and 103 issues (as CLS asserted), and whether the “inventive concept” discussed in Mayo should properly be a §§ 102/103 consideration, rather than a § 101 issue.   
  • The United States (USPTO) also presented its arguments, primarily siding with CLS.  The USPTO first noted that it did not believe that a bright line test for § 101 patentability was workable.  The USPTO then argued that an “inseparability” requirement should be put in place for computer-implemented inventions.  Under that construct, a computer-implemented invention that applies an abstract idea would only be patent eligible if the computer is “inseparably” linked to the invention.  The USPTO also asserted that adding a standalone general purpose computer to an abstract idea did not make a claim patent-eligible.  The USPTO further did not agree that analysis of § 101 issues should come before analysis of § 102 issues because the USPTO could most efficiently address all of the validity issues together.   
  • There was some discussion of whether the patent-in-suit was preemptive.  Judge Dyk asked Alice to identify alternative methods to implement the concept(s) (e.g., end-of-the-day netting) described in the patent-in-suit without infringing the patent claims.  Alice responded by emphasizing that the claims only claimed a particular method, but ultimately was unable to identify specific alternatives.  

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/search/audio.html.   We will issue a follow-up when the decision on this matter is issued.

Firm Highlights

News

Eugene Mar Named to Americas Rising Star Awards Shortlist by Euromoney Legal Media Group

Farella Braun + Martel partner Eugene Y. Mar has been named to the 2019 Americas Rising Star Awards shortlist for "Best in Patent" by Euromoney Legal Media Group. Eugene chairs Farella’s Technology Industry Group. As...

Read More
News

Farella Adds Technology Industry Group Depth

Read More
News

Farella Client CNEX Labs Prevails In High-Stakes Trade Secrets Trial Against Huawei

SAN FRANCISCO, June 26, 2019: Following a three-week trial, a Texas federal jury ruled in favor of Farella Braun + Martel client CNEX Labs, Inc., clearing CNEX of all allegations of trade secret misappropriation...

Read More
News

40 Farella Braun + Martel Attorneys Named to 2019 Northern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

SAN FRANCISCO, July 8, 2019: Forty Farella Braun + Martel attorneys across practice areas were named to the Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists of top attorneys in Northern California for 2019. Farella attorneys...

Read More
Publication

What California’s New Security Law Means to Your Business

Commonsense IoT security steps that startups and small business should consider to comply with California’s new law California recently enacted a new law, Senate Bill 327, that requires companies that make Internet of Things...

Read More
Publication

Who 'Owns' a Secret? Whether Trade Secret Licensees Have Standing to Sue in California

If the eye-popping damages awards in several recent lawsuits are any indication, companies are increasingly coming to see their private information as one of their most valuable assets—and California juries apparently agree. For example...

Read More
Event

IIPLA 4th Annual Meeting

Sushila Chanana will speak at IIPLA's 4th Annual Meeting program, "Trademark Squatting: Protecting Trademark Across Borders." Click here for more information.

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Attorneys Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020

Read More
News

Carly Alameda and Eugene Mar Named to Benchmark Litigation’s 40 & Under Hotlist 2019

Farella Braun + Martel partners  Carly O. Alameda and Eugene Y. Mar have been named to Benchmark Litigation ’s “ 40 & Under Hotlist” for 2019. The list honors partners 40 or younger who...

Read More