Home » Patents » Fieldfisher Seminar Review: Alice v CLS Bank

Fieldfisher Seminar Review: Alice v CLS Bank

Keltie LLP

K2 IP Limited

About IPcopy

IPcopy is an intellectual property related news site covering a wide variety of IP related news and issues. We will also take the odd lighthearted look at IP. Feel free to contact us via the details on the About Us page.

Disclaimer: Unless stated otherwise, the contributors to IPcopy (the "IPcopy writers") are patent and trade mark attorneys or patent and trade mark assistants at Keltie LLP or are network attorneys at K2 IP Limited. Guest contributors will be identified.

This news site is the personal site of the contributors and is not edited by the authors' employer in any way. From time to time however IPcopy may publish practice notes, legal updates and marketing news from Keltie LLP or K2 IP Limited. Any such posts will be clearly marked.

This news site is for information purposes only. Information posted to this news site is not legal advice and should not be taken as such. If you require IP related legal advice please contact your legal representative.

For the avoidance of doubt Keltie LLP and K2 IP Limited have no liability as to the content of IPcopy and any related tweets or social media posts.

Privacy Policy

IPcopy’s Privacy Policy can be viewed here.

photo-3rAs noted earlier this week, I had the pleasure of attending Fieldfisher’s recent Patent Experts Seminar on 10th July. The seminar comprised contributions from guest speakers including Frank L. Bernstein from Kenyon & Kenyon LLP in the US who spoke to the issue of Alice v CLS Bank (Alice v. CLS Bank: Through the Looking Glass, or Through a Glass Darkly?).

After recapping the basics of the Alice case (settlement risk method performed on generic computer, not patent eligible under §101), Frank turned his attention to the USPTO Guidelines which issued less than a week after Alice (19 June for decision; 25 June for Guidelines). The Alice Guidelines differ from prior guidance in a couple of ways. Firstly, they note that the same analysis should be used against all judicial exceptions (previous USPTO guidance had applied different analysis to abstract ideas (e.g. in Bilksi) versus laws of nature (Mayo)) and secondly, that the same analysis should be used against all claim categories.

Under the Alice guidelines, the USPTO should approach claim assessment as follows:

1. Determine if the claim is directed towards one of the 4 statutory invention categories, namely, process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. If the claim is not directed towards one of these categories then reject it as relating to non-statutory subject matter. If the claim is within one of the statutory categories then proceed to step 2.

2. Determine if the claim is directed to a judicial exception, e.g. law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea. If the claim is not directed towards one of these exceptions then it can be assessed for novelty/inventive step. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception then apply a two-step test (step 3).

3. Two step test.

Step 1: Determine whether the claim is directed to an abstract idea. As per the Alice case, abstract ideas are excluded from eligibility as monopolizing basic scientific tools might impede innovation and not promote it.

Step 2: If an abstract idea is present in the claim, determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.

The phrase “significantly more” is interesting and the USPTO Guidance suggests that examples of limitations that would meet this “significantly more” feature include:

  • Improvements to another technology or technical fields;
  • Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself;
  • Meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment

Examples of limitations that would not meet this “significantly more” feature include:

  • Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer;
  • Requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.

Frank highlighted how the last two points compare against current USPTO Examiner practice where applicants are allowed to recite “Using a processor” to perform method steps that are part of an algorithm and where system claims are drafted to features such as processor and a memory.

The Alice decision, and its predecessors, of course do not define the concept of an “abstract idea” and so this is something that is likely to develop over time. What is interesting for European observers is the presence of language in the Alice decision (“Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field”) that isn’t a million miles away from the concept of technical effect.

Arguments around the concept of Abstract ideas are likely to crop up in more cases  in the US and indeed the first such case has already been decided by the Federal Circuit in Digitech Image v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.

Mark Richardson 23 July 2014

1 Comment

  1. hollyipltd says:

    I think an interesting question is what proportion of US software patents are now likely to be invalid under the new Guidelines. At least one US commentator has said that many would be, implying that there are a lot of US patents where the invention is simply taking a known idea and implementing it on a generic computer.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: