Skip to main content
Advertising

Originally published June 19, 2014 at 9:25 AM | Page modified June 20, 2014 at 1:28 AM

  • Share:
             
  • Comments (0)
  • Print

Supreme Court tosses 'abstract' software patent

The Supreme Court on Thursday tossed out an Australian company's patent for business software in a decision that clarifies standards for awarding patents, but not as much as some firms had hoped.


Associated Press

Reader Comments
Hide / Show comments
Some of the biggest trolls are Apple and Microsoft. We can only hope that most of their bogus patents from the 90's... MORE

advertising

WASHINGTON —

The Supreme Court on Thursday tossed out an Australian company's patent for business software in a decision that clarifies standards for awarding patents, but not as much as some firms had hoped.

In a case closely watched by technology companies, justices ruled unanimously that the government should not have issued a patent to Alice Corp. in the 1990s because the company simply took an abstract idea that has been around for years and programmed it to run through a computer.

The decision makes clear that to obtain a patent, a company's idea must actually improve how a computer functions or make other technical advancements. It could also help technology firms mount a stronger defense against so-called patent trolls -- companies that buy up patents and force businesses to pay license fees or face costly litigation.

The software at issue allows a neutral third party to make sure all parties to a financial trade have lived up to their obligations. New York-based CLS Bank International claimed the patent was invalid.

"We conclude that the method claims, which merely require generic computer implementation, fail to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention," Justice Clarence Thomas said, writing for the court.

Dozens of technology firms -- including Google and Facebook -- submitted friend of the court briefs in the case, asking the high court to restrict the free flow of software patents they say are often too vague and can block other companies from innovation. But other companies, such as IBM, warned that too many new restrictions could nullify thousands of existing patents and discourage companies from investing in research and development.

John L. Cuddihy, a patent attorney in the nation's capital, said the court's decision offers "clarity and helpful guideposts," but "wisely tried not to over-specify the standards for determining eligibility of computer-based patents."

He said the ruling makes it easier for companies fighting patent troll litigation to argue that flimsy patents should not have been granted in the first place.

But Jennifer Spaith, a Seattle patent attorney, said the court could have offered more guidance on how patent standards should apply to the latest innovations, such as wearable technology, cloud computing and social media that are changing how people communicate and work.

"The Supreme Court did not offer tools for identifying patentable subject matter in these other intangible areas, so patentees will continue to battle uncertainty in these spaces," Spaith said.

Patents give inventors legal protection to prevent others from making, using or selling a novel device, process or application. The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that abstract ideas, natural phenomena and laws of nature cannot be patented.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had ruled that Alice Corp.'s patent was invalid, but only five of those on the 10-member panel of judges could agree on why.

The Obama administration had urged the court to invalidate the Alice patent and asked the justices offer more clarity to help lower courts decide what is and isn't valid. The administration said several factors should be considered, including whether the software improves how the computer functions or uses a computer to improve how another technological process works.

The case is Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 13-298.

___

Follow Sam Hananel on Twitter at http://twitter.com/SamHananelAP



Free 4-week trial, then $99 a year for unlimited seattletimes.com access. Try it now!

Also in Business & Technology

News where, when and how you want it

Email Icon

Free 4-week trial, then $99 a year.

Free 4-week trial, then $99 a year.

Unlimited seattletimes.com access. Try it now.

Advertising

Advertising


Advertising
The Seattle Times

The door is closed, but it's not locked.

Take a minute to subscribe and continue to enjoy The Seattle Times for as little as 99 cents a week.

Subscription options ►

Already a subscriber?

We've got good news for you. Unlimited seattletimes.com content access is included with most subscriptions.

Subscriber login ►
The Seattle Times

To keep reading, you need a subscription upgrade.

We hope you have enjoyed your complimentary access. For unlimited seattletimes.com access, please upgrade your digital subscription.

Call customer service at 1.800.542.0820 for assistance with your upgrade or questions about your subscriber status.

The Seattle Times

To keep reading, you need a subscription.

We hope you have enjoyed your complimentary access. Subscribe now for unlimited access!

Subscription options ►

Already a subscriber?

We've got good news for you. Unlimited seattletimes.com content access is included with most subscriptions.

Activate Subscriber Account ►