ILNews

SCOTUS nixes patent on financial risk software in closely watched case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Supreme Court of the United States has tossed out an Australian company's patent for business software in a closely watched case that clarifies standards for awarding patents.

The justices ruled unanimously Thursday that the government should not have issued a patent to Alice Corp. in the 1990s because the company simply took an abstract idea that has been around for years and programmed it to run through a computer.

The decision makes clear that to obtain a patent, a company's idea must actually improve how a computer functions or make other technical advancements. It could also help give technology firms a stronger defense against so-called patent trolls — companies that buy up patents and force businesses to pay license fees or face costly litigation.

The software at issue allows a neutral third party to make sure all parties to a financial trade have lived up to their obligations. New York-based CLS Bank International claimed the patent was invalid.

"We conclude that the method claims, which merely require generic computer implementation, fail to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention," said Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court.

Dozens of technology firms — including Google and Facebook — submitted friend of the court briefs in the case, asking the high court to restrict the free flow of software patents they say are often too vague and can block other companies from innovation. But other companies, such as IBM, warned that too many new restrictions could nullify thousands of existing patents and discourage companies from investing in research and development.

Patents give inventors legal protection to prevent others from making, using or selling a novel device, process or application. The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that abstract ideas, natural phenomena and laws of nature cannot be patented.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had ruled that Alice Corp.'s patent was invalid, but only five of the 10-member panel of judges could agree on why.

The Obama administration had also urged the court to invalidate the Alice patent and urged the justices offer more clarity to help lower courts decide what is and isn't valid. The administration said several factors should be considered, including whether the software improves how the computer functions or uses a computer to improve how another technological process works.

Companies have spent millions fighting patent troll litigation from firms that buy up patents from others and make money by asserting infringement and demanding licensing fees or settlements.

The case is Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 13-298.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT