Search Team

Search by Last Name

What is Alice?

Alice Banner

In Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012), the Supreme Court articulated a two-part analytical framework for determining whether a claim is patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (the “Mayo-test”). Mayo dealt with laws of nature and natural phenomena, two of the three judicial exceptions to patent-eligibility. In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the Supreme Court applied the Mayo-test to abstract ideas, the third of the three judicial exceptions.

“First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, ‘what else is there in the claims before us?’” 134 S. Ct. at 2355. In Mayo, the Supreme Court established the principle underlying eligibility as whether a claim “forecloses more future invention than the underlying discovery could reasonably justify.” 132 S. Ct. at 1301. In Alice, the Supreme Court confirmed that preemption is “the concern that drives this exclusionary principle.” 134 S. Ct. at 2354. In short, patents “that integrate the building blocks [of human ingenuity] into something more … pose no comparable risk of pre-emption, and therefore remain eligible for the monopoly granted under our patent laws.” 134 S. Ct. at 2355, citing 132 S. Ct. at 1303.

Although Alice dealt with software, Alice was not about software per se. Instead, it was about the patent-eligibility of an invention encompassing an abstract idea, regardless of whether the abstract idea is implemented in software. An example of this is Ex Parte Edward L. Palmer, Appeal 2012-003262, February 26, 2015 (2015 WL 933401), in which the PTAB upheld claims directed to “a poker game method of play” as patent-eligible under Alice.

Alice has changed the landscape for prosecutors and litigators alike. Since the decision, courts have struggled with identifying abstract ideas, as well as the “something more” required to meet part two of the test. With respect to Internet-based, software-implemented inventions, DDR Holdings, LLC v., L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Dec. 5, 2014) is the water-mark for patent-eligibility, while Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Nov. 14, 2014) is the water-mark for patent-ineligibility.

NameDateCourtCategoryAbstract IdeaSomething More
In re Mario Villenna8/29/2018Fed. Cir.Fundamental Economic PracticesYesNo
BSG Tech v. BuySeasons8/15/2018Fed. Cir.NoneYesNo
SAP America v. Investpic8/2/2018Fed. Cir.Fundamental Economic PracticesYesNo
Interval Licensing v. AOL7/20/2018Fed. Cir.NoneYesNo
In re George Mizhen Wang (737 Fed. Appx. 534)6/20/2018Fed. Cir.NoneYesNo
West View Research v. Audi AG4/19/2018Fed. Cir.Organizing InformationYesNo
Maxon v. Funai4/9/2018Fed. ClaimsNoneYes
Evolutionary Intelligence v. Sprint Nextel2/17/2018YesNo
Aatrix v. Green Shades Software2/14/2018Fed. Cir.NoneYesN/A
Zuili v. Google2/9/2018Fed. Cir.Manipulating DataYesNo
Berkheimer v. HP2/8/2018Fed. Cir.Organizing InformationYesYes/No
Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Electronics1/25/2018Fed. Cir.NoneNoN/A
Intellectual Ventures I v. Erie Indemnity11/3/2017Fed. Cir.NoneYesNo
Two-Way Media v. Comcast Cable Communications11/1/2017Fed. Cir.Manipulating DataYesNo
Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc.10/16/2017Fed. Cir.Organizing Human ActivityYesNo
Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corporation8/15/2017Fed. Cir.NoneNoN/A
Prism Techs. v. T-Mobile6/23/2017Fed. Cir.NoneYesNo
Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services (859 F.3d 1044)6/9/2017Fed. Cir.Fundamental Economic PracticesYesNo
Easyweb Innovations v. Twitter5/12/2017Fed. Cir.Manipulating DataYesNo
Recognicorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.4/28/2017Fed. Cir.Mathematical FormulaYesNo
load more

Please contact us for more information:

Ryan McCarthy Ryan McCarthy
 Ryan McCarthyKenneth Hoover