Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l

• Decision Date: 19 June 2014
• Docket Number: No. 13–298.,13–298.
• Citation: Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 189 L.Ed.2d 296 (2014)
• Parties: ALICE CORPORATION PTY. LTD., Petitioner v. CLS BANK INTERNATIONAL et al.
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

573 U.S. 208

134 S.Ct. 2347

189 L.Ed.2d 296

ALICE CORPORATION PTY. LTD., Petitioner

v.CLS BANK INTERNATIONAL et al.

No. 13–298.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued March 31, 2014.

Decided June 19, 2014.

Carter G. Phillips, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.

Mark Perry, Washington, DC, for Respondents.

Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Solicitor General, for the United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting the respondents.

Adam L. Perlman, Williams & Connolly LLP, Robert E. Sokohl, Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC, Carter G. Phillips, Counsel of Record, Jeffrey P. Kushan, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC, Constantine L. Trela, Jr., Tacy F. Flint, Timothy R. Hargadon, Benjamin M. Flowers, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner.

Mark A. Perry, Counsel of Record, Helgi C. Walker, Brian M. Buroker, Alexander N. Harris, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC, for Respondents.

Justice THOMASdelivered the opinion of the Court.

The patents at issue in this case disclose a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating "settlement risk"(i.e., the risk that only one party to a financial transaction will pay what it owes) by using a third-party intermediary.The question presented is whether these claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, or are instead drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea.We hold that the claims at issue are drawn to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and that merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.We therefore affirm the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

I

A

PetitionerAlice Corporation is the assignee of several patents that disclose schemes to manage certain forms of financial risk.¹According to the specification largely shared by the patents, the invention "enabl[es] the management of risk relating to specified, yet unknown, future events."App. 248.The specification further explains that the "invention relates to methods and apparatus, including electrical computers and data processing systems applied to financial matters and risk management."Id., at 243.

The claims at issue relate to a computerized scheme for mitigating "settlement risk"—i.e., the risk that only one party to an agreed-upon financial exchange will satisfy its obligation.In particular, the claims are designed to facilitate the exchange of financial obligations between two parties by using a computer system as a third-party intermediary.Id., at 383–384.²The intermediary creates "shadow" credit and debit records (i.e., account ledgers) that mirror the balances in the parties' real-world accounts at "exchange institutions"(e.g., banks).The intermediary updates the shadow records in real time as transactions are entered, allowing "only those transactions for which the parties' updated shadow records indicate sufficient resources to satisfy their mutual obligations."717 F.3d 1269, 1285(C.A.Fed.2013)(Lourie, J., concurring).At the end of the day, the intermediary instructs the relevant financial institutions to carry out the "permitted" transactions in accordance with the updated shadow records, ibid., thus mitigating the risk that only one party will perform the agreed-upon exchange.

In sum, the patents in suit claim (1) the foregoing method for exchanging obligations (the method claims), (2) a computer system configured to carry out the method for exchanging obligations (the system claims), and (3) a computer-readable medium containing program code for performing the method of exchanging obligations (the media claims).All of the claims are implemented using a computer; the system and media claims expressly recite a computer, and the parties have stipulated that the method claims require a computer as well.

B

Respondents CLS Bank International and CLS Services Ltd.(together, CLS Bank) operate a global network that facilitates currency transactions.In 2007, CLS Bank filed suit against petitioner, seeking a declaratory judgment that the claims at issue are invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed.Petitioner counterclaimed, alleging infringement.Following this Court's decision in Bilski v. Kappos,561 U.S. 593, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 177 L.Ed.2d 792(2010), the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on whether the asserted claims are eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.The District Court held that all of the claims are patent ineligible because they are directed to the abstract idea of "employing a neutral intermediary to facilitate simultaneous exchange of obligations in order to minimize risk."768 F.Supp.2d 221, 252(D.C.2011).

A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, holding that it was not "manifestly evident" that petitioner's claims are directed to an abstract idea.685 F.3d 1341, 1352, 1356(2012).The Federal Circuit granted rehearing en banc, vacated the panel opinion, and affirmed the judgment of the District Court in a one-paragraph per curiam opinion.717 F.3d, at 1273.Seven of the ten participating judges agreed that petitioner's method and media claims are patent ineligible.Seeid., at 1274(Lourie, J., concurring);id., at 1312–1313(Rader, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).With respect to petitioner's system claims, the en banc Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment by an equally divided vote.Id., at 1273.

Writing for a five-member plurality, Judge Lourie concluded that all of the claims at issue are patent ineligible.In the plurality's view, under this Court's decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.,566 U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 182 L.Ed.2d 321(2012), a court must first "identif[y] the abstract idea represented in the claim," and then determine "whether the balance of the claim adds ‘significantly more.’ "717 F.3d, at 1286.The plurality concluded that petitioner's claims "draw on the abstract idea of reducing settlement risk by effecting trades through a third-party intermediary," and that the use of a computer to maintain, adjust, and reconcile shadow accounts added nothing of substance to that abstract idea.Ibid.

Chief Judge Rader concurred in part and dissented in part.In a part of the opinion joined only by Judge Moore, Chief Judge Rader agreed with the plurality that petitioner's method and media claims are drawn to an abstract idea.Id., at 1312–1313.In a part of the opinion joined by Judges Linn, Moore, and O'Malley, Chief Judge Rader would have held that the system claims are patent eligible because they involve computer "hardware" that is "specifically programmed to solve a complex problem."Id., at 1307.Judge Moore wrote a separate opinion dissenting in part, arguing that the system claims are patent eligible.Id., at 1313–1314.Judge Newman filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, arguing that all of petitioner's claims are patent eligible.Id., at 1327.Judges Linn and O'Malley filed a separate dissenting opinion reaching that same conclusion.Ibid.

We granted certiorari, 571 U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 734, 187 L.Ed.2d 590(2013), and now affirm.

II

Section 101 of the Patent Act defines the subject matter eligible for patent protection.It provides:

"Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title."35 U.S.C. § 101.

"We have long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable."Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.,569 U.S. ––––, ––––, 133 S.Ct. 2107, 2116, 186 L.Ed.2d 124(2013)(internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).We have interpreted § 101 and its predecessors in light of this exception for more than 150 years.Bilski,supra, at 601–602, 130 S.Ct. 3218;see alsoO'Reilly v. Morse,15 How. 62, 112–120, 14 L.Ed. 601(1854);Le Roy v . Tatham,14 How. 156, 174–175, 14 L.Ed. 367(1853).

We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principle as one of pre-emption.See, e.g., Bilski, supra, at 611–612, 130 S.Ct. 3218(upholding the patent "would pre-empt use of this approach in all fields, and would effectively grant a monopoly over an abstract idea").Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are " ‘ "the basic tools of scientific and technological work." ’ "Myriad, supra, at ––––, 133 S.Ct., at 2116."[M]onopolization of those tools through the grant of a patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it," thereby thwarting the primary object of the patent laws.Mayo, supra, at ––––, 132 S.Ct., at 1923;seeU.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 8(Congress"shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts").We have "repeatedly emphasized this ... concern that patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of" these building blocks of human ingenuity.Mayo, supra, at ––––, 132 S.Ct., at 1301(citingMorse, supra, at 113).

At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law.Mayo,566 U.S., at ––––, 132 S.Ct., at 1293–1294.At some level, "all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas."Id., at ––––, 132 S.Ct., at 1293.Thus, an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept.SeeDiamond v. Diehr,450 U.S. 175, 187, 101 S.Ct. 1048, 67 L.Ed.2d 155(1981)."[A]pplication[s]" of such concepts " ‘to a new and useful end,’ "we have said, remain eligible for patent protection.Gottschalk v. Benson,409 U.S. 63, 67, 93 S.Ct. 253, 34 L.Ed.2d 273(1972).

Accordingly, in applying the § 101 excep...