Insights
Publications

Federal Circuit Issues Decision on Section 101 Patent Eligibility of Computer-Implemented Inventions

5/14/2013 Articles

On May 10, 2013, the Federal Circuit issued its en banc decision in CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. (Case No. 2011-1301), a closely watched dispute regarding the standard for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  The per curiam opinion affirmed the district court’s holding that the asserted method, computer-readable media, and system claims at issue are not directed to patent eligible subject matter under § 101. 

 

Despite this affirmation, the five separate concurring and dissenting opinions filed by the judges reveal a deep division in the Court on two key issues relating to § 101 patentability: first, whether system claims should be treated differently than method or computer-readable medium claims for the purposes of § 101 patentability, and, second, what the appropriate standard for determining whether a computer-implemented invention is patent eligible should be. 

 

The majority concurring opinion (filed by Judge Lourie, and joined by Judges Dyk, Prost, Reyna, and Wallach) agreed with the per curiam holding that the method, computer-readable media, and system claims at issue all merely claim unpatentable abstract ideas.  Judge Lourie opined that the drafting or form of a claim should not control whether it is patent eligible.  The opinion further noted that the requirement in the claims for computer implementation does not make the claims patent eligible because “essentially all practical, real-world applications of the abstract idea implicated here would rely, at some level, on basic computer functions . . . the requirement for computer participation in these claims fails to supply an ‘inventive concept’ that represents a nontrivial, nonconventional human contribution or materially narrows the claims relative to the abstract idea they embrace.”  This opinion affirmed the reasoning set forth in the recent line of Federal Circuit cases on § 101 patentability (e.g., CyberSource, Bancorp) that the role of the computer in a computer-implemented invention must be defined with some specificity and be central to the claimed invention.

 

The opinions filed by Judges Rader et al. and Moore (joined by Judges Rader, Linn and O’Malley) disagreed with the per curiam holding that the system claims are patent ineligible.  For example, Judge Moore opined that “a system claim’s structural limitations restrict the claimed machine by requiring certain physical components [which] are precisely the sort of ‘inventive concept’ that meaningfully limits the claim.”  These opinions also remarked that a patent ineligible “general purpose” computer becomes a patent eligible “special purpose” computer once it is programmed with software, but were silent on the extent of the disclosure regarding software necessary to make such an invention patent eligible.

 

Judge Newman and Judges Linn and O’Malley filed opinions sharing the majority view that all of the claims of the patent at issue stand or fall together, but opined that the system, method, and media claims at issue are all patent eligible under § 101.  Judge Newman further urged the Court to “abandon its failed section 101 ventures into abstraction, preemption, and meaningfulness,” and to instead “return to the statute, and hold that when the subject matter is within the statutory classes in section 101, eligibility is established.”

 

Notably, the Federal Circuit did not adopt the USPTO’s proposed “inseparability” requirement for computer-implemented inventions, under which a computer-implemented invention that applies an abstract idea would only be patent eligible if the computer is “inseparably” linked to the invention.  

 

Overall, the decision is symptomatic of the Court’s challenge and difficulty in promulgating any bright-line standard for determining when a computer-implemented invention is a patent eligible “special purpose” computer or a patent ineligible “general purpose” computer.  This opinion also raises the question of whether the USPTO needs to revise its patent-eligibility test under § 101 since the “inseparability” test was also rejected.  For the foreseeable future, it appears that the viability of § 101 challenges will continue to be heavily dependent on the specific court, judge, and patent that is at issue.  And, given the deep divide at the Federal Circuit, the outcome of any appeal will likely also depend on the makeup of the panel.

Firm Highlights

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 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

Facebook Suspends Apps That Scrape Data From Its Platform Following Cambridge Analytica Scandal

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
News

Farella Adds Technology Industry Group Depth

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
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
News

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

Read More
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