EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS


Alice v CLS Bank (SCOTUS, 2014) Has Had a Profound Effect on 2017 as Nearly No Software Patents Upheld at a High Level

Posted in America, Law, Patents at 3:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), which birthed software patents, no longer wants them

The year 2014

Summary: As 2017 nears its end (less than two weeks left), a look back reveals a terrible year for proponents of software patents and a milestone for opponents of software patents

THE latest battle is won, but not yet the war. Following Alice the USPTO rejects many software patents and CAFC, the highest court below the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS), is no longer interested in software patents. It rejects these virtually all the time. Lawyers are still shaken by this de facto end/ban of software patents (in the US at least) because it harms their income. They only care about their cash register. 6 days ago a leading publication of patent lawyers wrote about it as follows:

I’m gonna weasel out and say they’re both good points. Some software patent owners do continue to press claims that might arguably have been eligible five or 10 years ago, but clearly are not any more. As of August, the Federal Circuit had summarily affirmed more than 50 ineligibility opinions, according to research by Boston University’s Paul Gugliuzza and Stanford’s Mark Lemley. By the time those cases reached appeal (and probably far sooner), those patent owners were forging ahead with slim to no chance.

On the other hand, U.S. District Judge Gregory Sleet of Delaware socked Inventor Holdings with fees for all of the litigation dating back to when the Supreme Court decided Alice v. CLS Bank in 2014.

To affirm, the Federal Circuit indulged a fictional world where the law of patent eligibility became crystal clear the day Alice was decided, at least for patent claims involving “implementations of economic arrangements using generic technology,” such as the Inventor Holdings patent.

Alice v CLS Bank was one among several relatively recent (in SCOTUS terms) decisions in which SCOTUS overturned a CAFC decision. Where CAFC had promoted/emboldened patent maximalists the Justices at SCOTUS put an end to that. Faruki Ireland Cox Rhinehart & Dusing PLL wrote about Impression v Lexmark a few days ago. It’s one among the very latest SCOTUS decisions to overturn CAFC decisions. SCOTUS is pretty clear about patents; these monopolies have gone way too far in terms of scope, venue-shifting and so on. Justices at SCOTUS recognise this. They are gradually putting an end to that.

So what has the patent microcosm got left to do? Usually finding loopholes. They try to patent software in spite of the restrictions. Here’s a new example that says: “Securing intellectual property (IP) can be a major hurdle for startups at the best of times. But software – and in particular AI — brings its own unique challenges.”

“AI” is just another buzzword and law firms try to exploit it to patent software even though software patents are pretty much banned (not officially).

How about blockchain patents? We wrote quite a lot about these earlier this year and it seems pretty clear that it’s a bubble. Well, here’s a new press release that shows the ongoing gold rush [1, 2]. Never mind if such patents are most likely void. Maybe these sneak past examiners. Maybe past PTAB, too. Maybe district courts. But CAFC is not likely to tolerate these anymore.

The times are changing. Tough time for patent maximalists, no doubt…

See what happened in Amgen v Sandoz (CAFC) some days ago:

The Federal Circuit has ruled that Sandoz did not forfeit its preemption defence and the BPCIA preempts state law remedies in its biosimilars dispute with Amgen. The decision makes clear that brand biologic companies have no remedies available against a biosimilar applicant who is refusing to engage in the patent dance

Here’s another patent maximalist weighing in:

On remand, the Supreme Court directed the Federal Circuit to determine whether the failure to provide the information and data [under § 262(l)(2)(A)] is a violation of California law of unfair competition and conversion.

In its decision here, the Federal Circuit holds that the BPCIA preempts any state laws that would create liability for failure to comply with the requirement for providing information and data.

This isn’t about § 101, but it’s still interesting as it shows a change in views. CAFC is no longer what it used to be. Not even close… Rader is out and the tune has changed.

Alice at SCOTUS (the software patents eliminator) causes trouble not only for classic patent trolls but for a variety of entities which exist solely for litigation purposes. Even Kluwer Patent Blog, which typically focuses on Europe, wrote about it four days ago:

Affirming the district court’s decision, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court’s reasoning that, once the Supreme Court issued its decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International in June 2014. 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the patent infringement claims were objectively without merit and should have been voluntarily withdrawn.

This is the effect of Alice. The patent microcosm tries to ‘scandalise’ Alice, but it was a rational and long-overdue decision. The CCIA’s Josh Landau, writing in Patent Progress 3 days ago, tackled the use of the term “Alice Storm” — a term which is being spread by proponents of software patent (who still try to ‘scandalise’ SCOTUS).

Landau said this:

You might be familiar with Bob Sachs’ term “Alice Storm.” Sachs and his co-authors over at Bilski Blog argue that “Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank has had a dramatic impact on the allowability of computer implemented inventions.”

I disagree, and some newly released data from the Patent Office seems to back me up. Alice has had a limited impact overall, and much of that impact is centered on patent applications that were drafted before Alice (and her Federal Circuit children, like DDR Holdings and McRO) was decided. For the “Alice Storm”, you don’t even need an umbrella.

And on it goes…

Alice was a case of justice, not politics. It was not a “storm” but a ruling at the highest level. Don’t let the patent extremists distract from that…

CAFC was also mentioned in relation to Arendi and § 103 a few days ago. IP Watch explained that “[s]ince the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc. last August,[1] many patent commentators have asserted that the decision marked a significant change in the analysis of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, especially as a weakening of single-reference obviousness grounds. Notwithstanding this decision, petitioners and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board have continued to rely on single-reference obviousness to assert and find that claims are obvious.”

Well, the the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which we covered in the previous post, has become an Alice-enforcing mechanism and more generally a SCOTUS-enforcing mechanism. SCOTUS will likely cement PTAB’s role in the new year. That’s the consensus even among PTAB foes.

And speaking of PTAB foes, the most anti-PTAB site, Watchtroll, has just promoted this long new article from Gene Quinn, who is speaking to the choir (comments are pro-software patents). “Software Patent Eligibility at the Federal Circuit 2017″ is his headline and it’s a long list of software patents rejections, including for example RecogniCorp, LLC v Nintendo Co. Quinn fails to reveal his bias; he starts by whining about SCOTUS and only then lists the cases:

The judicial exception at play when computer implemented inventions are claimed is the abstract idea exception. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has never defined the phrase abstract idea, and neither has the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Similarly, there is no definition for significantly more. Therefore, in practice, deciding whether a claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea and/or adds significantly more than the abstract idea has proved to be rather subjective. Notwithstanding, the United States Patent and Trademark Office has created a Quick Reference Guide based on current case law.


[On RecogniCorp, LLC v Nintendo Co.:] The patent in question, U.S. Patent No. 8,005,303, sought to encode images in a way that required less memory and bandwidth.

There’s no conclusion in this article, maybe as the conclusion would have to be that software patents are very dead at CAFC and Watchtroll does not wish to spell it out.

RecogniCorp, LLC v Nintendo Co. (Supreme Court) was also recalled by Patently-O a few days ago. There are no patents on algorithms anymore, so no ‘joy’ for RecogniCorp. That’s just the new reality. Whether patent extremists accept it or not should not matter; they’re not, after all, arbiters of law.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

What Else is New

  1. As European Patent Office Management Covers up Collapse in Patent Quality Don't Expect UPC to Ever Kick Off

    It would be madness to allow EPO-granted patents to become 'unitary' (bypassing sovereignty of nations that actually still value patent quality); it seems clear that rogue EPO management has, in effect, not only doomed UPC ambitions but also European Patents (or their perceived legitimacy, presumption of validity)

  2. António Campinos -- Unlike His Father -- Engages in Imperialism (Using Invalid Patents)

    Despite some similarities to his father (not positive similarities), António Campinos is actively engaged in imperialistic agenda that defies even European law; the EPO not only illegally grants patents but also urges other patent offices to do the same

  3. António Campinos Takes EPO Waste and Corruption to Unprecedented Levels and Scale

    The “B” word (billions) is thrown around at Europe’s second-largest institution because a mischievous former EUIPO chief (not Archambeau) is ‘partying’ with about half of the EPO’s all-time savings, which are supposed to be reserved for pensions and other vital programmes, not presidential palaces and gambling

  4. Links 15/6/2019: Astra Linux in Russia, FreeBSD 11.3 RC

    Links for the day

  5. Code of Conduct Explained: Partial Transcript - August 10th, 2018 - Episode 80, The Truth About Southeast Linuxfest

    "Ask Noah" and the debate on how a 'Code of Conduct' is forcibly imposed on events

  6. Links 14/6/2019: Xfce-Related Releases, PHP 7.4.0 Alpha

    Links for the day

  7. The EPO is a Patent Troll's Wet Dream

    The makers of software and games in Europe will have to spend a lot of money just keeping patent trolls off their backs — a fact that seems to never bother EPO management because it profits from it

  8. EPO Spreading Patent Extremists' Ideology to the Whole World, Now to South Korea

    The EPO’s footprint around the world's patent systems is an exceptionally dangerous one; The EPO amplifies the most zealous voices of the patents and litigation ‘industry’ while totally ignoring the views and interests of the European public, rendering the EPO an ‘agent of corporate occupation’

  9. Guest Post: Notes on Free Speech, and a Line in the Sand

    We received this anonymous letter and have published it as a follow-up to "Reader's Claim That Rules Similar to the Code of Conduct (CoC) Were 'Imposed' on LibrePlanet and the FSF"

  10. Links 13/6/2019: CERN Dumps Microsoft, GIMP 2.10.12 Released

    Links for the day

  11. Links 12/6/2019: Mesa 19.1.0, KDE neon 5.16, Endless OS 3.6.0 and BackBox Linux 6

    Links for the day

  12. Leaked Financial 'Study' Document Shows EPO Management and Mercer Engaging in an Elaborate “Hoax”

    How the European Patent Office (EPO) lies to its own staff to harm that staff; thankfully, the staff isn't easily fooled and this whole affair will merely obliterate any remnants of "benefit of the doubt" the President thus far enjoyed

  13. Measuring Patent Quality and Employer Quality in Europe

    Comparing the once-famous and respected EPO to today's joke of an office, which grants loads of bogus patents on just about anything including fruit and mathematics

  14. Granting More Fundamentally Wrong Patents Will Mean Reduced Certainty, Not Increased Certainty

    Law firms that are accustomed to making money from low-quality and abstract patents try to overcome barriers by bribing politicians; this will backfire because they show sheer disregard for the patent system's integrity and merely lower the legal certainty associated with granted (by greedy offices) patents

  15. Links 11/6/2019: Wine 4.10, Plasma 5.16

    Links for the day

  16. Chapter 10: Moving Forward -- Getting the Best Results From Open Source With Your Monopoly

    “the gradual shift in public consciousness from their branding towards our own, is the next best thing to owning them outright.”

  17. Chapter 9: Ownership Through Branding -- Change the Names, and Change the World

    The goal for those fighting against Open source, against the true openness (let's call it the yet unexploited opportunities) of Open source, has to be first to figuratively own the Linux brand, then literally own or destroy the brand, then to move the public awareness of the Linux brand to something like Azure, or whatever IBM is going to do with Red Hat.

  18. Links 10/6/2019: VLC 3.0.7, KDE Future Plans

    Links for the day

  19. Patent Quality Continues to Slip in Europe and We Know Who Will Profit From That (and Distract From It)

    The corporate media and large companies don't speak about it (like Red Hat did before entering a relationship with IBM), but Europe is being littered and saturated with a lot of bogus software patents -- abstract patents that European courts would almost certainly throw out; this utter failure of the media to do journalism gets exploited by the "big litigation" lobby and EPO management that's granting loads of invalid European Patents (whose invalidation goes underreported or unreported in the media)

  20. Corporate Front Groups Like OIN and the Linux Foundation Need to Combat Software Patents If They Really Care About Linux

    The absurdity of having groups that claim to defend Linux but in practice defend software patents, if not actively then passively (by refusing to comment on this matter)

  21. Links 9/6/2019: Arrest of Microsoft Peter, Linux 5.2 RC4, Ubuntu Touch Update

    Links for the day

  22. Chapter 8: A Foot in the Door -- How to Train Sympathetic Developers and Infiltrate Other Projects

    How to train sympathetic developers and infiltrate other projects

  23. Chapter 7: Patent War -- Use Low-Quality Patents to Prove That All Software Rips Off Your Company

    Patents in the United States last for 20 years from the time of filing. Prior to 1994, the patent term was 17 years from when the patent was issued.

  24. The Linux Foundation in 2019: Over 100 Million Dollars in Income, But Cannot Maintain Linux.com?

    Today’s Linux Foundation gets about 0.1 billion dollars per year (as explained in our previous post), so why can’t it spend about 0.1% of that money on people who write for and maintain a site that actually promotes GNU/Linux?

  25. Microsoft and Proprietary Software Vendors a Financial Boon for the Linux Foundation, But at What Cost?

    The Linux Foundation is thriving financially, but the sources of income are diversified to the point where the Linux Foundation is actually funded by foes of Linux, defeating the very purpose or direction of such a nonprofit foundation (led by self-serving millionaires who don't use GNU/Linux)

  26. The Linux Foundation as a Facilitator of Microsoft's Abduction of Developers (for GitHub, Azure, Visual Studio and Windows)

    There’s a profoundly disturbing pattern; in a rush for influence and money the Linux Foundation inadvertently (or worse — consciously and deliberately) paved the way to Microsoft’s more modern version of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish (EEE)

  27. Links 8/6/2019: FreeBSD 11.3 Beta 3, Git 2.22.0 and IPFire 2.23

    Links for the day

  28. Microsoft Peter is a Pedophile, Arrested Without Bail

    "Microsoft Peter" turns out to be a very sick man, much like people who apply for a job at Microsoft, knowing the company's dirty dealings and crimes

  29. Links 7/6/2019: IceWM 1.5.5, IBM Layoffs, Kdenlive 19.04.2

    Links for the day

  30. This Week's US Senate Hearings on Patents Are a Farce, Just as Expected

    With few exceptions like the EFF, Senate hears testimonies from stacked panels (full of lobbyists and think tanks), set up for the sole purpose of misleading Senate and helping them buy a law

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts