Software Patents After Alice: What's Still Patentable?
Software Patents After Alice: What's Still Patentable?
The 2014 Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank fundamentally changed software patent law. Understanding what's still patentable—and how to draft claims that survive Alice challenges—is critical for tech companies.
The Alice Decision: What Changed
The Two-Step Alice Test:
**Step 1**: Is the claim directed to an abstract idea?
**Step 2**: If yes, does the claim contain an "inventive concept" sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter?
**Impact on Software Patents:**
What Remains Patentable
Still Patent-Eligible:
**1. Improvements to Computer Functionality**
**Example**: A novel data compression algorithm that reduces file size by 50% while maintaining quality
**2. Technology-Specific Solutions**
**Example**: A distributed caching system that reduces server load and improves response times
**3. Integration with Physical Systems**
**Example**: Software controlling a robotic surgical system with haptic feedback
**4. Specific Technical Implementations**
**Example**: A blockchain consensus mechanism that reduces energy consumption by 90%
What's Difficult to Patent
High-Risk Categories:
**1. Abstract Business Methods**
**Example**: A method for hedging financial risk (Alice itself)
**2. Data Gathering and Display**
**Example**: Collecting and displaying weather data
**3. Well-Known Processes on Generic Computers**
**Example**: Using a computer to perform basic calculations
Strategies for Drafting Alice-Proof Claims
1. Focus on Technical Implementation
**Weak Claim:**
"A method for recommending products comprising: analyzing user data; generating recommendations; displaying recommendations."
**Stronger Claim:**
"A distributed recommendation system comprising: a data processing engine that partitions user behavior data across multiple nodes using a novel hashing algorithm; a machine learning module that generates feature vectors using a specific neural network architecture optimized for sparse data; and a real-time ranking engine that sorts recommendations using a cache-efficient tree structure, wherein the system reduces server response time by at least 40% compared to conventional methods."
2. Claim Specific Computer Improvements
**Before:**
"Using AI to analyze images"
**After:**
"A computer vision system that reduces false positives in object detection by 60% through a novel convolutional neural network architecture that processes multiple resolution scales simultaneously using shared weight parameters, reducing memory requirements while improving accuracy."
3. Integrate Hardware Elements
**Generic:**
"A system for monitoring patient health comprising: sensors; a processor; and a display."
**Specific:**
"A wearable health monitoring device comprising: a custom ASIC that processes ECG signals using a specific filtering algorithm with 30% less power consumption; a memory buffer that stores data using a compression method optimized for physiological signals; and a wireless transmitter that adjusts transmission power based on a novel battery life optimization algorithm."
4. Emphasize Non-Conventional Features
**Conventional:**
"Encrypting data before transmission"
**Non-Conventional:**
"A data encryption method that partitions data into segments encrypted with different keys according to a dynamic key selection algorithm based on network congestion levels, reducing encryption overhead during high-traffic periods while maintaining security."
Claim Drafting Best Practices
1. Detailed Specifications
**Include:**
**Example Structure:**
2. Multiple Claim Strategies
**Independent Claims:**
**Dependent Claims:**
3. Avoid Abstract Language
**Weak Terms to Avoid:**
**Strong Terms to Use:**
Prosecution Strategies Post-Alice
Responding to Alice Rejections
**1. Amendment Approach:**
**2. Argument Approach:**
**3. Evidence Approach:**
Useful Federal Circuit Decisions
**Pro-Patentability Cases:**
**Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft (2016):**
**McRO v. Bandai Namco (2016):**
**Data Engine Technologies v. Google (2018):**
**Anti-Patentability Cases:**
**Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec (2016):**
**Electric Power Group v. Alstom (2016):**
Industry-Specific Considerations
Fintech
**Challenges:**
**Solutions:**
Machine Learning/AI
**Patentable:**
**Not Patentable:**
Blockchain/Cryptocurrency
**Patentable:**
**Not Patentable:**
Cloud Computing
**Patentable:**
**Not Patentable:**
Alternative IP Protection Strategies
When Patents Are Difficult:
**1. Trade Secrets:**
**2. Copyright:**
**3. Trademark:**
**4. Defensive Publications:**
Portfolio Strategy
Layered Protection Approach:
**Core Technology:**
**Implementations:**
**Defensive Layer:**
Working with Dynamic Nexus
Our software patent practice includes:
**Pre-Filing Strategy:**
**Prosecution:**
**Portfolio Building:**
**Post-Grant:**
We've successfully obtained over 500 software patents since Alice, with an 85% allowance rate and strong prosecution strategies.
Recent Developments
USPTO Guidance (2019):**
**Revised Section 101 Guidance:**
**Impact:**
Pending Legislation:
**Patent Eligibility Restoration Act:**
Best Practices Summary
**Do:**
**Don't:**
Conclusion
Software patents remain viable and valuable in the post-Alice era, but success requires strategic drafting and prosecution. By focusing on specific technical improvements, detailed implementations, and computer functionality enhancements, you can build a strong software patent portfolio.
The key is understanding what makes software patentable today and crafting claims that emphasize technological innovation rather than abstract ideas.
Contact Dynamic Nexus for a software patent strategy consultation. Our technical expertise and deep understanding of Alice jurisprudence will help you protect your software innovations effectively.