CLS Bank v. Alice ruling by US CAFC on 8 May 2013

Big news; will post analysis in the next few hours. Contributions to this page very welcome. (11 May 2013)

For background to this court case, see: CLS Bank v. Alice (2012, USA)

This is a very important ruling. The US CAFC ruled en banc (all the judges together). The only appeal left that could change this would be to the US Supreme Court.

The Court's opinion(s)

The court published an extremely splintered ruling:

• The ruling (11-1301) US CAFC en banc

The 10 judges wrote 7 opinions, for a total of 135 pages, and the only text they could agree on was this paragraph which is the official opinion of the court:

Upon consideration en banc, a majority of the court affirms the district court’s holding that the asserted method and computer-readable media claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. An equally divided court affirms the district court’s holding that the asserted system claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under that statute.

So the judges agreed that the patent claims were invalid, but disagreed on why. The various rationales are contained in their individual opinions.

Experts' reactions

(newest first)

• False Distinctions Between Hardware and Software Patents are Not the Answer, 9 June 2013, (note: possible pro-patent bias) Eric Gould Bear
• Judges split on software patents and computer transubstantiation, 20 May 2013, Rob Tiller
• Software Patent Eligibility, 13 May 2013, David Schwartz
• CLS Bank v. Alice Corp: Court Finds Many Software Patents Ineligible, 10 May 2013, Patently-O
• Federal Circuit, en banc, rules in CLS Bank, 10 May 2013, Groklaw

Related pages on ESP Wiki

• Case law in the USA
• US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit