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 2023

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

Five partners reveal how delays in examining trademark applications are affecting their advice to clients and how they pitch new work
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Partners at Quinn Emanuel explain how walkie-talkie and real-estate analogies helped them win over a jury at the Eastern District of Texas
The heads of Malaysian firm HHQ’s new technology practice group say they can be frontline advisers on the intersection between AI, blockchain, and IP
Darren Jiron, Finnegan’s managing partner in London, discusses the firm’s growth plans and misconceptions about US firm culture
The EMEA region research cycle has commenced - do not miss this opportunity to nominate your work from 2023!
A former partner at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, which voted to dissolve in October, has joined McCarter & English
As ChatGPT celebrates its first birthday, we are still grappling with a multitude of IP concerns
Sources say an official role at an IP industry body is great for generating business leads, but that shouldn’t be the only motivation behind taking on the responsibility
Breton is commissioner for the internal market in the EU at the European Commission