Supreme Court agrees to decide on Alice v CLS
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Supreme Court agrees to decide on Alice v CLS

The Supreme Court has confirmed it will hear oral arguments in Alice’s dispute with CLS Bank, in a case that will rule on the extent to which software and business methods are patentable.

The US Supreme Court today agreed to hear Alice v CLS. Next year’s verdict in the landmark case will provide clarity over when, if ever, an otherwise abstract idea is patent-eligible under Section 101.

Alice Corporation in September asked the Court to review the Federal Circuit’s decision in its dispute with CLS Bank. In an en banc decision in May this year, the 10 Federal Circuit judges split 5-5 on Alice’s claims to computer system inventions. This split meant the district court summary judgment that the claims were unpatentable was upheld.

Alice is an electronic financial marketplace that is 50% owned by National Australia Bank. The Supreme Court decision will have big ramifications for the software industry.

Legal arguments are likely to start in March with a verdict to follow by the end of June.

Alice is represented by Supreme Court specialist Carter Phillips with other lawyers from Sidley Austin’s Washington, DC and Chicago office. Phillips has argued 76 cases before the Supreme Court including patent trials LA v Quanta and eBay v MercEchange.

May’s Federal Court decision followed a 2-1 panel decision to uphold Alice’s patents in July 2012, which created inconsistencies in the way that judges have interpreted Section 101. Chief Judge Rader recently admitted the 2012 ruling was “the greatest failure in my judicial career”. He added: “I think we have a responsibility to deal with what we are given and try to provide guidance in the right direction and we did not do that.”

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

With a team of more than 80 patent lawyers and attorneys across 21 European offices, the firm is acting in some of the most high-profile UPC cases
Lippes Mathias has hired three partners and a counsel from Offit Kurman
External counsel for automotive companies explain how trends such as AI and vehicle connectivity are affecting their practices and reveal what their clients are prioritising
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The winners of the awards will be revealed at a gala dinner in New York City on April 25
Counsel debate the potential outcome of SCOTUS’s latest copyright case after justices questioned whether they should dismiss it
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP lawyer about their life and career
The small Düsseldorf firm is making a big impact in the UPC. Founding partner Christof Augenstein explains why
The court criticised Oppo’s attempts to delay proceedings and imposed a penalty, adding that the Chinese company may need to pay more if the trial isn’t concluded this year
Miguel Hernandez explains how he secured victory for baby care company Naterra in his first oral argument before the Federal Circuit
Gift this article