Supreme Court Recognizes Limits in Software Patentability

Re/code has a nice overview, Supreme Court Recognizes Limits in Software Patentability "Notably, the court did not throw out the idea of software patentability, which some companies had worried might happen. The justices took a more narrow path, saying that inventors or companies don’t deserve patents on abstract ideas that are only new because they’ve been implemented on a computer.

The court found that digitizing an abstract idea like escrow and putting it on a computer isn’t enough to warrant a patent. Software and technological advances that improve on an idea can be patentable, but the court found in this case that Alice Corp.’s invention didn’t really do that."

Ars has more technical details, Supreme Court smashes “do it on a computer” patents in 9-0 opinion.

"Future court battles are likely to circle around the concept of just what is abstract. In one sense, it seems that the Supreme Court is taking technology that's actually just quite old—like using hedging and intermediaries in business—and calling it "abstract. The effect of that will be to put more patent battles in the area of Section 101, which is where frequent patent defendants want it. Getting a ruling that software or Internet patents are "abstract" means they can be thrown out of court relatively quickly. Proving patents are invalid because they were anticipated by earlier inventions is much more likely to lead to expensive court battles that involve discover and the hiring of expensive experts. Patent owners who go to court will certainly always argue their inventions aren't abstract. Still, today's opinion has guideposts that will make it easier for judges to rule that they are."

Vox puts it all in plain English, The Supreme Court just restricted software patents. Here's what that means.

Some are complaining that the court just kicked the can down the road for a little longer, The Supreme Court’s decision on software patents still doesn’t settle the bigger question. That's definitely something the Roberts Court (and some previous courts) does and people on both ends of the spectrum complain about it.