October Term 2013 · Docket 13-298
Does using a computer make an abstract idea patentable?
Alice Corp. argues its settlement system patent is valid. CLS Bank argues the patent covers an abstract idea.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Phillips argued the patent is a system patent. He stated Section 101 applies directly to the claims.
Mr. Perry argued the patent covers an abstract idea. He cited Bilski and Mayo as controlling precedent.
General Verrilli argued a computer must impose a meaningful limit. He stated tacking on a computer instruction is insufficient.
Justice Breyer questioned the distinction between the patent and a checkbook. He asked how the patent is less abstract than a reservoir.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 4-4 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 4-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 38-12 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 38-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 20-38 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 20-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 40-42 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 40-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 36-14 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 36-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 12-18 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 12-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 14-1 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 14-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 5-8 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 5-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 16-26 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 16-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 32-42 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 32-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 14-14 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 14-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 18-44 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 18-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 48-6 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 48-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 14-16 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 14-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 20-32 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 20-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 40-44 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 40-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 48-10 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 48-10
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Alice Corp. holds a patent for a computerized settlement system. CLS Bank uses the system without a license. Alice Corp. sued for infringement. The lower court found the patent invalid. Alice Corp. seeks to reverse that finding. CLS Bank seeks to affirm the lower court decision.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 4-4 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 4-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 38-12 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 38-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 20-38 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 20-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 36-14 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 36-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 14-1 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 14-1
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 31, 2014.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 5-8 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 5-8
What each side wants
Alice Corp. wants the Court to reverse the lower court decision. It seeks to uphold its patent as valid.
CLS Bank wants the Court to affirm the lower court decision. It seeks to invalidate the patent as an abstract idea.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 4-4 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 4-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 38-12 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 38-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 20-38 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 20-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 36-14 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 36-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 14-1 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 14-1
What each side says
Alice Corp. argues the patent is valid. It claims the computer implementation makes the abstract idea concrete.
CLS Bank argues the patent is invalid. It claims the computer merely executes an abstract economic principle.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 4-4 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 4-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 38-12 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 38-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 20-38 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 20-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 36-14 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 36-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 14-1 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 14-1
What the justices asked
Justice Breyer asked why the patent is less abstract than a grain elevator.
Justice Kennedy asked if the innovative aspect is merely an idea.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 40-42 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 40-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 12-18 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 12-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 5-8 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 5-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 16-26 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 16-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 32-42 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 32-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 14-14 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 14-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 18-44 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 18-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 48-6 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 48-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 14-16 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 14-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 20-32 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 20-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 40-44 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 40-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 48-10 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 48-10
Why it matters
The outcome defines the boundary between patentable technology and abstract concepts. It affects software patents and financial technology innovation. It determines whether basic business methods can be monopolized by code.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 4-4 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 4-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 38-12 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 38-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 20-38 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 20-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 36-14 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 36-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 14-1 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 14-1
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 40-42 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 40-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 12-18 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 12-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 5-8 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 5-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 16-26 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 16-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 32-42 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 32-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 14-14 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 14-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 18-44 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 18-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 48-6 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 48-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 14-16 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 14-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 20-32 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 20-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 40-44 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 40-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 48-10 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 48-10
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 4-4 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 4-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 38-12 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 38-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 20-38 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 20-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 36-14 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 36-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 14-1 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 14-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 4-4 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 4-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 38-12 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 38-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 20-38 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 20-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 36-14 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 36-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 14-1 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 14-1
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.