US Supreme Court agrees to hear Alice case

The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a high profile case which could clarify whether computer implemented inventions can be patented.

The court has granted certiorari to Australian organisation Alice Corporation in its long-running battle with CLS Bank.

The case, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Intl, stretches back to 2007 when CLS Bank, a provider of foreign exchange markets, brought a case against Alice at the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

Alice had tried to patent claims for a computer system for electronic financial transactions, which were challenged by CLS Bank.

Alice’s patents were deemed invalid but the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the decision and sent it for a re-hearing en banc (before every judge of the court).

In May this year, seven judges agreed that Alice’s claims were not patent eligible, but a majority of the judges could not agree on the legal rationale for the conclusion.

As a result, Alice appealed to the Supreme Court in September claiming that the legal standards governing whether “computer implemented inventions are eligible for patent protection” remain “entirely unclear” and “utterly panel dependent”.

It added that a Supreme Court ruling would bring “much needed clarity” to the situation.

The court announced on December 6 that it would hear the case.

“Alice has received considerable attention for the fractured nature of the Federal Circuit’s en banc opinion, which is now under review,” said Paul Schoenhard, counsel at Ropes & Gray LLP, in Washington, DC.

Schoenhard added that the case presented a “unique opportunity” for the court to clarify patentability jurisprudence.

The court has already been asked by WildTangent, an online gaming company, to clarify when a patent’s reference to a computer or computer-implemented service is sufficient to make an unpatentable abstract patent eligible under section 101.

“Whether it is ultimately argued alone or in tandem with WildTangent, Alice presents a unique opportunity for the Supreme Court to clarify its Section 101 patentability jurisprudence,” said Schoenhard.

“The software, telecommunications, and Internet-related industries will be watching this case carefully, looking for the court to offer some stability in this area of the law.”

In a statement, CLS spokesman, Nick Murray-Leslie said: “We look forward to the Supreme Court resolving this important case.”

Alice did not respond to immediate requests to comment.