Supreme Court Appears Ready to Strike Against Software Patents

But how heavy of a hand the justices will use remains unclear.

National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Dustin Volz
March 31, 2014, 9:43 a.m.

Just how far down the rab­bit hole should Alice go?

That was, fig­ur­at­ively, the ques­tion be­fore the Su­preme Court on Monday, as justices con­sidered the prop­er scope of soft­ware pat­ent eli­gib­il­ity in what many on­look­ers have called the most im­port­ant in­tel­lec­tu­al-prop­erty case in years — and one that could strike a hard blow against the grow­ing prob­lem of pred­at­ory pat­ent lit­ig­a­tion, or pat­ent trolling.

The nine justices heard or­al ar­gu­ments for an ap­peal brought by the Aus­trali­an-based Alice Corp., which has claimed that CLS Bank In­ter­na­tion­al vi­ol­ated its pat­ents on a com­puter pro­gram meant to re­duce the risk of non­pay­ment dur­ing fin­an­cial trans­ac­tions.

CLS, and the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion, main­tain that there is noth­ing in­nov­at­ive about Alice’s tech­no­logy. They say Alice’s pat­ents de­ploy an ob­vi­ous and ubi­quit­ous fin­an­cial ser­vice — an es­crow ac­count — and merely tacks on the words “on a com­puter” in their fil­ings.

Alice main­tains that its pat­ents pro­tect le­git­im­ate in­nov­a­tion, the kind that has al­lowed Amer­ic­an en­tre­pren­eurs to thrive for cen­tur­ies. A de­cision is ex­pec­ted in late June.

The is­sue is com­plex, a prob­lem ex­acer­bated by a wildly splintered rul­ing from the fed­er­al cir­cuit last year. But sev­er­al justices on Monday signaled they agreed on prin­ciple with CLS, des­pite in­ton­ing that they have a daunt­ing task of fig­ur­ing out ex­actly what stand­ard should be ad­op­ted when re­view­ing the qual­ity of soft­ware pat­ents.

Justice Steph­en Brey­er al­most im­me­di­ately began chal­len­ging the valid­ity of Alice’s pat­ents, sug­gest­ing that tak­ing an “ab­stract” idea — which is carved out in cur­rent law as not pat­entable — and ap­ply­ing it dir­ectly to a com­puter without sub­stan­tial, tech­no­logy-spe­cif­ic modi­fic­a­tion is not enough to jus­ti­fy pat­ent pro­tec­tions.

“My moth­er, who used to look at my check­book, when she saw that in fact I had writ­ten more checks than I had in the ac­count, she would grab it (and yell) ‘Stop!’ Brey­er said. “If you say, ‘com­puter stop’, you have an in­ven­tion “¦ but if you say, ‘moth­er stop’, you don’t?”

Brey­er at­temp­ted to get any­one to of­fer him what they thought would be an ap­pro­pri­ate stand­ard for pat­ent eli­gib­il­ity, but both sides de­murred. The justice, some­what ex­as­per­ated, summed up the ag­on­iz­ing de­cision be­fore the Court: “If you go all the way and say nev­er, you rule out real com­puter in­ven­tions.”

Justice An­thony Kennedy ad­di­tion­ally ex­pressed doubt that the tech­no­logy be­hind Alice’s pat­ents couldn’t be built dur­ing a week­end by a couple of col­lege-age com­puter en­gin­eers work­ing in a Sil­ic­on Val­ley cof­fee shop.

“My guess is that that would be fairly easy to pro­gram,” Kennedy said. “The in­nov­a­tion is cer­tainly not from us­ing a com­puter to make it work.”

Justice Ant­on­in Scalia may have been the sole voice on the bench to at least en­ter­tain Alice’s view in full, ask­ing: “Why isn’t do­ing it through a com­puter not enough?”

He ad­ded: “Was the cot­ton gin not an in­ven­tion be­cause it just means you’re do­ing through a ma­chine what people used to do by hand? “¦ Why is a com­puter any dif­fer­ent in that re­spect?”

Chief Justice John Roberts ad­ded that he is un­sure wheth­er a clear test, such as one ad­vanced by the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion, would really clear up con­fu­sion for Dis­trict Courts re­spons­ible for re­view­ing in­fringe­ment suits.

In re­sponse, So­li­cit­or Gen­er­al Don­ald Ver­rilli at­temp­ted to as­suage con­cerns that a stricter, clear­er test on pat­ent qual­ity would hamper in­nov­a­tion, not­ing that “when we say something is not pat­ent eli­gible, we’re not say­ing they can’t do it; we’re say­ing they can’t mono­pol­ize it.”

Monday’s hear­ing has drawn heavy in­terest from a who’s who list of large tech gi­ants, many of whom filed amicus briefs re­flect­ing their views of soft­ware pat­entab­il­ity. While vir­tu­ally none was will­ing to de­fend Alice’s pat­ents out­right, some, such as IBM, Mi­crosoft, and Adobe, ex­pressed con­cern that a broad rul­ing could re­duce the pro­tec­tions on good-qual­ity pat­ents, thereby un­der­min­ing tech­no­lo­gic­al in­nov­a­tion, a con­cern Alice’s coun­sel tried to echo.

“This would in­her­ently de­clare, in one fell swoop, hun­dreds of thou­sands of pat­ents in­val­id,” said Carter Phil­lips, warn­ing against a bright-line rule on soft­ware pat­ent eli­gib­il­ity. “The con­sequences of that are un­know­able.”

Oth­er com­pan­ies, in­clud­ing Google, Face­book, and Twit­ter, have ar­gued in fa­vor of stronger pro­tec­tions against bad soft­ware pat­ents. But vir­tu­ally none of the ti­tans agrees on ex­actly what should be con­sidered an eli­gible soft­ware pat­ent, leav­ing the Court with a de­cision lack­ing.

Also watch­ing with in­terest is Cap­it­ol Hill. The Sen­ate Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee has been grap­pling for months with how to strike a le­gis­lat­ive com­prom­ise that would cur­tail the grow­ing prob­lem of pat­ent trolling, which some es­tim­ates say cost the eco­nomy tens of bil­lions of dol­lars an­nu­ally.

Monday’s ar­gu­ments marked a cap­stone of a term sprinkled with pat­ent cases. Last month, the Su­preme Court heard back-to-back cases ex­amin­ing the ap­pro­pri­ate­ness of mak­ing losers pay the win­ner’s leg­al fees in a pat­ent in­fringe­ment suit.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.