Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International
GPTKB entity
Statements (58)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:legal_case
|
| gptkbp:case_number |
13-298
|
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
encouraged innovation in software development
influenced patent law education influenced patent litigation strategies significant impact on patent law affected patent application processes encouraged alternative dispute resolution methods encouraged collaboration between tech companies highlighted need for clearer patent guidelines increased focus on patent litigation outcomes increased public interest in patent law issues increased scrutiny of software patents influenced patent office practices led to legislative proposals for patent reform led to more rigorous patent examinations led to more transparency in patent litigation legal uncertainty for patent holders no inventive concept found patent claims deemed abstract prompted discussions on patent quality reaffirmed Mayo and Myriad decisions redefined scope of patentable inventions reduced scope of patentable subject matter shaped future patent eligibility standards shift in patent strategy for tech companies sparked debates on patent reform initiatives |
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:United_States_Supreme_Court
|
| gptkbp:date |
March 31, 2014
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
gptkb:Justice_Sonia_Sotomayor
0-9 |
| gptkbp:effective_date |
June 19, 2014
|
| gptkbp:has_implications_for |
business method patents
computer-implemented inventions |
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International
|
| gptkbp:impact |
software patents
|
| gptkbp:influenced_by |
gptkb:Diamond_v._Chakrabarty
gptkb:Bilski_v._Kappos gptkb:Gottschalk_v._Benson |
| gptkbp:involved_parties |
gptkb:Alice_Corporation
gptkb:CLS_Bank_International |
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
gptkb:573_U._S._208
|
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
gptkb:intellectual_property
|
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
patent eligibility
|
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
abstract idea exception
inventive concept requirement two-step test for patent eligibility |
| gptkbp:outcome |
patents invalidated
|
| gptkbp:precedent |
abstract ideas
future patent cases |
| gptkbp:public_perception |
gptkb:Justice_Clarence_Thomas
9-0 |
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:Mayo_Collaborative_Services_v._Prometheus_Laboratories
Myriad Genetics, Inc. v. Association for Molecular Pathology |
| gptkbp:significance |
clarified standards for patent eligibility
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Federal_Circuit
|
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
5
|