InternationalUSRemember you can easily switch between MIP US and MIP International at any time

The further adventures of Alice

James Nurton

Experience suggests we should not expect clear guidance from the US Supreme Court on patent eligibility. Yet many practitioners still hope that, this time, things will be different

In as little as six months, the US Supreme Court could provide clarity on the interpretation of Section 101, finally giving patent applicants in computer software certainty and predictability about whether their inventions are eligible to be patented.

Alternatively, the confusion could get much worse. That would be the result if the Court declines to hear the latest cases referred to it, or – having heard them – fails to provide a clear test for the lower courts to apply.

For that reason, Alice's widely expected decision to appeal the knife-edge judgment from the Federal Circuit is a gamble. The appeal court judges split equally in that case, and with six different opinions – one of them a cri de coeur from Chief Judge Rader.

Their opinions seemed to be almost begging the higher court to provide some answers. With Alice, and a similar case that has also been appealed, WildTangent v Ultramercial, the Supreme Court now has the opportunity to do so. And just to up the stakes Alice has hired Supreme Court big hitter Carter Phillips to represent it.

Practitioners tell us the outcome of software-related cases at the Federal Circuit today depends on the (randomly determined) composition of the three-judge panel, making it hard if not impossible to advise clients on their chances of success. The latest example of the division within the Court came just last week in Accenture. (Judges pictured, right.)

Of course, the Supreme Court has to take much of the responsibility for this mess. When it said, in Bilski, that the machine-or-transformation test was not the final word on patent eligibility, it left both patent attorneys and judges without a clear rule to apply. What is considered an abstract idea has become subjective. When I asked one practitioner how she advises clients in these circumstances, she replied: "We say we will find the case law that best supports the case, and tell them to keep their fingers crossed."

If it decides to take either or both of the Alice and WildTangent cases, is there any realistic hope for clearer guidance this time? Experience suggests not: the Supreme Court generalist judges don't like hard tests, they prefer flexibility and – judging by Bilski – some of them are pretty sceptical about the place of patents in this area at all.

Yet some practitioners believe things will be different this time. The clear message from the Federal Circuit and district courts; the emergence of two cases together; the provocative comments from the Federal Circuit; and above all the public and political debates about trolls and the role of patents in the economy: all may inspire the judges. "These circumstances should make the case more attractive to them," says Ching-Lee Fukuda of Ropes & Gray in New York. "A robust Section 101 test would help everyone."


Article Comments

I was going to make a pithy comment about the US Supreme Court, but after entering captcha nonsense 3 times it is gone.

Alun Palmer Sep 17, 2013

I wonder who would be helped by a "robust Section 101 test"? That all depends upon what it might say. That said, you are quite right that the US Supreme Court is unlikely to give one, just to obfuscate further.

Alun Palmer Sep 17, 2013

Popular Posts

Blog Archive

IP-related blogs

1709 Copyright Blog


AIA blog

Art and Artifice

China IPR

Class 99

Domain Incite

FOSS Patents

Green Patent Blog


IP CloseUp

IP Dragon

IP finance

IP Kat

IP Komodo

IP tango

IP Watchdog


MARQUES Class 46

Orange Book Blog

Patent Baristas



SPC Blog

Spicy IP

The Trademark Blog

The TTABlog