In recent years, the Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International case, and its resulting rulings, have produced substantial shifts within patent law. The case has had implications that reach even the most niche sectors of patent portfolio development. However, not all corporations with a vested interest in patents fully grasp how these legal changes might impact them, often dismissing it as someone else’s problem to worry about.
The Alice case centers around a two-step test to evaluate the degree of abstractness in patent claims. As such, it has direct implications for claims of performance criteria and product attributes in patent prosecution. Despite the seeming complexity or irrelevance of the impact to some businesses, the Alice decision is defining the strategies that both patent prosecution professionals and litigators need to consider when dealing in patents and patent-infringing claims.
Section 101 claims, particularly for so-called widget manufacturers, can indeed trigger invalidity under the Alice test, posing an unexpected risk for those companies. Patent assertions that were previously considered safe may not hold up in the wake of these shifting legal standards.
Legal professionals and patent specialists are encouraged to delve deeper into the complexities of these changes. An insightful examination conducted by attorneys at Holland & Knight is available. It discusses this in further detail, offering valuable tips for those handling patents in this shifting legal landscape. Read their piece on “How Section 101 Claims Can Trigger Invalidity Under Alice.”
Ignorance is not an adequate defense when it comes to patent law. Regardless of your company’s sector or the nature of patented products, understanding Alice and its implications are vital. Neglecting to familiarize yourself and your team, could trigger unexpected consequences when it comes to patent prosecution and litigation.