On June 19, 2014, the United States Supreme Court decided one of the many cases which make their way through the judicial labyrinth and up the steps of the Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court does not entertain all cases which arrive at its doorstep, but it did entertain this one. The result…the Supreme Court is little by little closing the door on the future of software patents.
In recent years various software patent cases have made it up those marble steps. In 2012, it was Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. __ (2012). In 2014, the culprit was Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __ (2014).
As most developers will tell you, software (in its most basic form) is designed as a set of instructions and functions as a result of which a set of operations will be performed. A set of instructions, no matter how neatly organized they may be, is not enough to garner patent protection.
In Mayo, the Supreme Court determined that it has to “distinguish between patents that claim the building blocks of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something more.” The question then becomes, when is software just a set of building blocks, and when does it turn those set of building blocks into something more. Therein lays the secret of software patent eligibility.
Most software will have a difficult time crossing over this threshold. The Supreme Court will most likely see them as neatly set up instructions, which would yield the same result if considered separately. At least this has been the recent fate of those who dared cross the marble steps.
In recent years various software patent cases have made it up those marble steps. In 2012, it was Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. __ (2012). In 2014, the culprit was Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __ (2014).
As most developers will tell you, software (in its most basic form) is designed as a set of instructions and functions as a result of which a set of operations will be performed. A set of instructions, no matter how neatly organized they may be, is not enough to garner patent protection.
In Mayo, the Supreme Court determined that it has to “distinguish between patents that claim the building blocks of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something more.” The question then becomes, when is software just a set of building blocks, and when does it turn those set of building blocks into something more. Therein lays the secret of software patent eligibility.
Most software will have a difficult time crossing over this threshold. The Supreme Court will most likely see them as neatly set up instructions, which would yield the same result if considered separately. At least this has been the recent fate of those who dared cross the marble steps.