Contact Us Today! 207-219-8418

Recent News

Alice Applied: Federal Circuit Upholds Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank

Posted by John M. Burke, Esq. | Jul 09, 2015 | 0 Comments

On June 11, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the decision of the United States District of California in the matter of OIP Technologies, INC. v., INC. OIP Technologies alleged that infringed on their patent (U.S. Patent No. 7,970,713) related to a method of price optimization in an e-commerce environment. The ‘713 patent essentially claims a method for product pricing that tests consumer reactions to various prices, and automatically adjusts product prices based on estimated and actual demand in the marketplace. The purpose of the invention is to provide vendors with more accurate pricing in order to charge the optimal price that maximizes profits.

Amazon moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the ‘713 patent consists of unpatentable subject matter. The district court agreed and granted Amazon's motion because the ‘713 patent solely claims the abstract idea of price optimization using a computer program. The district court found that without the computer-limitation, the patent merely claims a standard offer-based price optimization procedure, which many business owners already perform in pricing products. The CAFC agreed with the district court. The CAFC cited the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347, in which the Court held that generic computer implementation of an abstract idea fails to transform idea into patentable subject matter. The CAFC determined that the ‘713 patent was similar to the invention in Alice because these “computer functions are ‘well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]' previously known in the industry.”

Clearly, the Supreme Court's opinion in Alice has broad implications in the computer software industry as evidenced by the result in this case. In the future, those seeking patent protection for computer-implemented methods and processes would be wise to think about their invention in a “computer-less” environment and determine whether their method is sufficiently different than conventional activities in the industry. To read the opinion of the CAFC, please click here.

 . . .

Caseiro Burke is an intellectual property law firm providing legal services to individuals and businesses around the world. We offer clients creative, cost-effective and reliable legal solutions in all intellectual property matters. Our dedication to the practice of intellectual property law provides our clients with the focus of attention necessary to establish, protect and commercialize their innovations. Whether you are a sole inventor looking for patent protection for your invention, a distillery protecting its brand or a manufacturing company asserting or defending a patent infringement claim, Caseiro Burke will work with you to achieve effective results.

About the Author

John M. Burke, Esq.

John M. Burke manages the firm’s Maine Cannabis Law practice. Mr. Burke advises and represents the firm’s clients throughout Maine in both the Medical and Adult Use cannabis programs in a wide range of Maine cannabis law matters. In addition to Mr. Burke’s Maine cannabis law practice, Mr. Burke advises and assists the firm’s clients in a variety of industries on various intellectual property matters throughout the United States.


There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment