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

News

Farella Braun + Martel Ranked Among “Best Law Firms” by U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers

SAN FRANCISCO, November 5, 2020: Farella Braun + Martel earned national and regional rankings across a number of practice areas in the U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers® release of the “Best...

Read More
Publication

Artificial Intelligence Can’t Patent Inventions: So What?

The USPTO’s  recent landmark decision  ( 16/524,350 ) concluding artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be a named patent inventor perhaps sparked fears of super-robots inventing critical technologies that, alas, receive no patent protection. If an...

Read More
News

Benchmark Litigation 2021 Ranks Farella Among Top Litigation Firms in California

SAN FRANCISCO, October 12, 2020: Farella Braun + Martel continues to be ranked among the top litigation firms in California in the  Benchmark Litigation  2021 guide. Farella was ranked “Highly Recommended” for Dispute Resolution...

Read More
Publication

How Antitrust and Unfair Competition Laws Affect Platform Providers’ Relationships With ISVs, API Developers, and Scrapers

A wide variety of business and consumer platforms host mutually beneficial ecosystems. But these ecosystems are also fraught with antitrust risk that arises when platforms try to terminate or modify the terms of third-party...

Read More
News

3 Things To Know After Busy WDTX Patent Judge's 1st Trial

Eugene Mar spoke to Law360 about the  MV3 Partners LLC v. Roku Inc.  case in the article, " 3 Things To Know After Busy WDTX Patent Judge's 1st Trial." In the article, Eugene said he's...

Read More
Publication

Three Steps Licensees Can Take to Protect Their IP Rights in Bankruptcy

During periods of widespread economic disruption such as the present, operating businesses must be able to identify and respond to threats to the financial health of their contracting counterparts in order to protect key...

Read More
Event

Trade Secrets: Protection, Enforcement, and Litigation West Coast Conference

Eugene Mar is a speaker on the "Protection, Prevention, and Investigations" panel at the 3rd Annual Sandpiper Partners Trade Secrets: Protection, Enforcement, and Litigation West Coast Conference virtual event.

Read More
News

Jeff Fisher Named Among California’s 2020 Top Trade Secrets Lawyers by the Daily Journal

SAN FRANCISCO, October 7, 2020: Farella Braun + Martel is proud to announce that Jeffrey M. Fisher was named among the “Top Trade Secrets Lawyers” in California by the Daily Journal . Jeff is...

Read More
Publication

Insights Into the First Patent Trial in Waco, Texas - MV3 Partners v. Roku

A 7-person jury in Waco, Texas, recently returned its verdict in the first patent trial held before Judge Albright: defense verdict, no finding of infringement. In the MV3 Partners v. Roku dispute, MV3 Partners...

Read More
Publication

Breaking up the Patent Monopoly for the Benefit of Batteries

The patent monopoly is at odds with the global need for battery storage technology. As the world mobilizes towards climate change solutions, companies with battery patents will face increasing pressure to share this critical...

Read More