In 2014, the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International fundamentally changed what can and cannot be patented in the United States. The case established a two-step framework — now known as the Alice test — that has since invalidated thousands of patents and reshaped how patent applications are examined, particularly in software, fintech, diagnostics, and business methods.
If you're an inventor working on software, data analytics, AI systems, financial technology, or anything involving algorithms or business processes, understanding Alice is no longer optional — it's the single most important threshold your invention must cross before it can receive patent protection.
This guide explains exactly what the Alice decision means, how the USPTO and courts apply the test today, which types of inventions are most at risk, and — critically — how to structure your patent application to survive an Alice challenge. Written by a practicing patent attorney with substantial experience in software patent prosecution.
Table of Contents
- What Is the Alice Decision?
- The Alice Two-Step Test Explained
- What Qualifies as an "Abstract Idea"?
- Step Two: The "Inventive Concept" Requirement
- Which Types of Inventions Are Most Affected?
- How to Draft Claims That Survive Alice Scrutiny
- How Courts Have Applied Alice Since 2014
- Alice vs. Mayo: How the Framework Evolved
- How the USPTO Examines Patent Eligibility Today
- Frequently Asked Questions
1. What Is the Alice Decision?
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), is a landmark Supreme Court case that addressed whether certain types of inventions qualify as patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
At issue was a patent held by Alice Corporation covering a computerized method for mitigating settlement risk in financial transactions — essentially, using a computer to act as a trusted third party in an exchange. CLS Bank, which was accused of infringement, argued that the patent simply claimed an abstract idea (the concept of escrow) performed on a generic computer, and was therefore not eligible for patent protection.
The Supreme Court agreed. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the patent was invalid because it claimed an abstract idea without adding anything "significantly more" than conventional computer implementation. The decision didn't just invalidate Alice's patent — it established a two-step framework that is now applied to every patent application and litigation involving eligibility challenges.
Since 2014, Alice has become one of the most cited patent cases in history and has reshaped entire industries' approach to intellectual property protection.
2. The Alice Two-Step Test Explained
The Alice test is a two-step inquiry used to determine whether a claimed invention is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Here's how it works:
Step 1: Is the Claim Directed to an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
The court or examiner first determines whether the claims are directed to one of the judicially recognized exceptions to patentability:
- Abstract ideas — fundamental economic practices, mathematical formulas, methods of organizing human activity, mental processes
- Laws of nature — naturally occurring principles or relationships (e.g., E=mc²)
- Natural phenomena — products of nature that have not been meaningfully transformed
If the answer is no, the claim is patent-eligible and the analysis ends. If the answer is yes, proceed to Step 2.
Step 2: Does the Claim Contain an "Inventive Concept" That Transforms It Into Patent-Eligible Subject Matter?
Even if a claim is directed to an abstract idea, it can still be patentable if it includes elements — individually or as an ordered combination — that constitute an "inventive concept" sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
The Supreme Court has said that the inventive concept must be "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. Simply reciting generic computer components, conventional steps, or well-understood activity is not enough.
If the claim survives Step 2 by demonstrating an inventive concept, it is patent-eligible. If not, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
3. What Qualifies as an "Abstract Idea"?
One of the most challenging aspects of Alice is that "abstract idea" is not precisely defined. The Supreme Court has declined to create a bright-line test, instead relying on case-by-case analysis. However, the USPTO and Federal Circuit have developed several recognized categories:
USPTO's Groupings of Abstract Ideas (2019 Revised Guidance)
In 2019, the USPTO issued revised guidance organizing abstract ideas into three main groupings:
| Category | Description | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Mathematical Concepts | Mathematical formulas, equations, calculations, geometric relationships | Algorithms for data compression, encryption formulas, statistical analysis methods |
| Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity | Fundamental economic practices, commercial interactions, managing personal behavior, legal obligations | Hedging risk, intermediated settlement, advertising methods, contractual relationships |
| Mental Processes | Concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion | Comparing data, categorizing information, forming a diagnosis based on observed symptoms |
If a claim falls into one of these categories and does nothing more than recite the abstract idea with generic language like "using a computer" or "via the internet," it is likely to be rejected at Step 1.
Real-World Abstract Ideas from Case Law
- Mitigating settlement risk (Alice) — using a third party to reduce risk in financial exchanges
- Hedging risk (Bilski v. Kappos) — protecting against price fluctuation risk in commodities
- Filtering content (Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One) — tailoring information based on user characteristics
- Detecting fraud (CyberSource v. Retail Decisions) — verifying transaction validity using internet data
- Targeted advertising (Ultramercial v. Hulu) — showing ads in exchange for content access
4. Step Two: The "Inventive Concept" Requirement
Even if your claim is directed to an abstract idea, it can still be patent-eligible if it contains an inventive concept. The Federal Circuit and USPTO have clarified what does and does not qualify.
What Does NOT Constitute an Inventive Concept
- Generic computer implementation — Simply performing an abstract idea on a generic computer, server, or mobile device
- Conventional steps — Routine, well-understood, or widely used processes added to the abstract idea
- "Apply it on a computer" language — Reciting that a mental process is performed using conventional technology
- Field-of-use limitations — Limiting an abstract idea to a particular technological environment without more
- Insignificant extra-solution activity — Routine data gathering or post-solution activity
Example: Claiming "a method of hedging risk using a computer" would fail. The computer is merely a tool for executing the abstract concept, not a transformative element.
What DOES Constitute an Inventive Concept
- Specific technical improvements — Claims that improve computer functionality, network performance, data security, or system efficiency
- Unconventional combinations — Arranging known elements in a new way that produces unexpected results
- Limitations that solve a technical problem — Claim features that address specific technological challenges
- Non-generic implementations — Particular machines, tools, or structures that go beyond general-purpose computing
Example: In DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, the Federal Circuit upheld a patent for a system that displayed third-party content on a host website while maintaining the "look and feel" of the host — solving the specific technical problem of retaining website visitors. The court found this was not just conventional web activity, but a technological solution to an internet-specific problem.
5. Which Types of Inventions Are Most Affected?
Alice has had a disproportionate impact on certain technology sectors. Here's where inventors face the most scrutiny:
Software and Computer-Implemented Inventions
Software patents are the most heavily impacted category. Claims that simply automate a manual process, organize data, or perform calculations using generic hardware face steep rejection rates. However, software patents that improve computer functionality itself — such as enhanced memory management, faster processing, improved security protocols, or novel user interfaces — have a much better chance of surviving.
Business Methods and Financial Technology
Business method patents — once a booming area — have been devastated by Alice. Methods of conducting transactions, managing accounts, pricing products, or facilitating exchanges are nearly impossible to patent unless they involve a genuinely novel technical implementation.
Diagnostic Methods and Medical Technology
Alice built on the earlier Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories decision (discussed in Section 8), which applied similar reasoning to diagnostic methods. Claims that simply observe a natural phenomenon and make a diagnosis based on that observation often fail under the Mayo/Alice framework.
Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning
AI and ML patents face unique challenges. Claims directed to training a model, classifying data, or making predictions are often characterized as abstract mathematical algorithms. To survive, these claims typically must demonstrate how the AI system improves a specific technical process or solves a concrete technical problem — not just that it produces useful information.
What Still Gets Through
Inventions that involve physical transformation, specific hardware improvements, or manufacturing processes are generally unaffected by Alice. Mechanical devices, chemical compositions, medical devices with novel structures, and traditional industrial processes remain fully patentable under conventional novelty and non-obviousness analysis.
6. How to Draft Claims That Survive Alice Scrutiny
For inventors and attorneys working in Alice-sensitive areas, strategic claim drafting is essential. Here are proven strategies based on successful cases and USPTO guidance.
Strategy 1: Frame the Invention as a Technical Improvement
Rather than claiming "a method of doing X using a computer," frame your invention as solving a specific technical problem. Focus on how the invention improves computer functionality, network performance, data processing, or user experience in a non-abstract way.
Good example: "A method for reducing latency in distributed database systems by dynamically partitioning queries based on real-time network congestion metrics..."
Bad example: "A computer-implemented method for managing customer data..."
Strategy 2: Include Specific Technical Limitations
Generic language kills patents under Alice. Instead of "a processor," describe the specific architecture, memory structure, or data flow. Instead of "a network," specify the protocol, topology, or communication method.
The more technically specific your claim limitations, the harder it is for an examiner to characterize them as "conventional" or "generic."
Strategy 3: Demonstrate Unconventional Combinations
Even if individual claim elements are known, their ordered combination might be unconventional and produce unexpected results. Emphasize in your specification how the particular arrangement solves problems that prior systems could not.
Strategy 4: Tie Abstract Concepts to Physical Components
If your invention involves data analysis or pattern recognition (abstract), tie it to specific sensors, measurement devices, or physical outputs. Courts have been more favorable to inventions where the abstract idea is integrated into a larger physical system.
Strategy 5: Use Dependent Claims to Add Layers of Detail
Even if your independent claim is at risk, dependent claims with specific implementation details can survive. These narrower claims may provide valuable protection even if broader claims are invalidated.
Strategy 6: Build a Strong Specification
Your specification should thoroughly explain the technical problem, why prior solutions failed, and how your invention achieves unexpected results or improved performance. Examiners and judges look to the specification to determine whether claimed elements are truly inventive or merely conventional.
Working with an experienced patent attorney who understands Alice case law is critical — the difference between an allowed patent and a § 101 rejection often comes down to how claims are framed and supported in the first filing.
7. How Courts Have Applied Alice Since 2014
The Alice decision has spawned hundreds of subsequent cases. While the framework remains the same, courts have refined how they apply it.
Notable Cases Upholding Patent Eligibility
DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com (Fed. Cir. 2014) — One of the first post-Alice wins for patentees. The court upheld a patent for an internet-specific solution that maintained a host website's visual appearance while displaying third-party content, finding it addressed a problem "necessarily rooted in computer technology."
Enfish v. Microsoft (Fed. Cir. 2016) — Upheld a patent for a self-referential database structure, finding it improved computer functionality rather than using computers to perform an abstract process. The court emphasized that not all software is abstract.
McRO v. Bandai Namco (Fed. Cir. 2016) — Upheld claims to an automated method for lip-syncing 3D animation, holding that the claims were directed to a specific technological improvement in how computers create animation, not merely an abstract idea.
Notable Cases Striking Down Patents
Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One (Fed. Cir. 2017) — Invalidated patents covering webpage customization and database systems, finding they merely applied abstract ideas using generic computer components.
Berkheimer v. HP (Fed. Cir. 2018) — While ultimately unfavorable to the patentee, this case established that whether claim elements are "conventional" can be a question of fact requiring evidence, not just examiner assertion.
ChargePoint v. SemaConnect (Fed. Cir. 2019) — Invalidated claims to networked electric vehicle charging stations, finding they were directed to the abstract idea of communication over a network with no inventive concept.
8. Alice vs. Mayo: How the Framework Evolved
Alice did not create the two-step framework from scratch — it adapted the test first articulated in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, 566 U.S. 66 (2012).
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus (2012)
In Mayo, the Supreme Court invalidated patents on methods for optimizing drug dosages by measuring metabolite levels in patients' blood. The Court held that the claims were directed to natural laws (the relationship between metabolite concentration and treatment efficacy) and did not include an inventive concept beyond "well-understood, routine, conventional activity."
The two-step test from Mayo became the foundation for Alice. Together, they form what is now called the Mayo/Alice framework, applied across all categories of patent-ineligible subject matter: abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena.
Key Differences
Mayo dealt primarily with diagnostic methods and laws of nature. Alice extended the same reasoning to abstract ideas in the context of business methods and software. The analytical framework is identical, but Alice has had a far broader practical impact due to the prevalence of software and business method patents.
9. How the USPTO Examines Patent Eligibility Today
The USPTO follows detailed examination guidelines that implement the Mayo/Alice framework. Here's how the process works in practice:
USPTO's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
In January 2019, the USPTO issued revised guidance intended to bring more consistency to § 101 rejections. The guidance introduced a more structured approach to Step 1 and Step 2A (a bifurcation of the original Step 1).
Step 2A: Prong One — Is the Claim Directed to a Judicial Exception?
The examiner determines whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Under the 2019 guidance, if the claim does not fall into one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas (mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes), the examiner should not make a § 101 rejection.
Step 2A: Prong Two — Are There Practical Applications?
Even if the claim recites a judicial exception, it is patent-eligible if the additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application. This includes:
- Improvements to computer or technology functionality
- Application of the judicial exception with a particular machine
- Transformation of an article to a different state or thing
- Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the exception to a particular technological environment
If the claim integrates the exception into a practical application, it is patent-eligible and the analysis ends. If not, proceed to Step 2B.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept
If the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the examiner determines whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to "significantly more" than the exception itself.
The burden is on the examiner to establish that additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. After Berkheimer v. HP (2018), examiners must provide factual support — such as references, affidavits, or official notice — rather than conclusory assertions.
Responding to § 101 Rejections
If you receive an Alice rejection, effective responses include:
- Arguing the claim is not directed to an abstract idea — show it's directed to a specific technological improvement
- Demonstrating practical application — explain how the claim integrates the idea into a practical use
- Showing unconventional elements — provide evidence (declarations, citations) that claim elements are not conventional
- Amending claims — add specific technical limitations from the specification
- Challenging examiner's burden — under Berkheimer, demand factual support for assertions of conventionality
Success depends heavily on the strength of your specification. If the spec doesn't explain how and why your invention is technically innovative, arguments at prosecution are extremely difficult.
10. Frequently Asked Questions
Does Alice mean software can't be patented?
No. Alice does not prohibit software patents — it prohibits patents on abstract ideas implemented using generic technology. Software that improves computer functionality, enhances system performance, solves specific technical problems, or involves unconventional implementations can still be patented. The key is framing claims around the technical contribution, not just the business outcome or data processing result.
What is the difference between Alice and Mayo?
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories (2012) established the two-step framework for determining patent eligibility, focusing on diagnostic methods and laws of nature. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (2014) applied the same framework to abstract ideas in business methods and software. They use the same analytical test — together called the Mayo/Alice framework — but Alice has had broader impact due to the prevalence of software patents.
Can I still get a business method patent after Alice?
It's extremely difficult, but not impossible. Pure business methods — like methods of hedging risk, pricing products, or managing contracts — are nearly always rejected as abstract ideas. However, if the business method involves a specific technological implementation that solves a technical problem or improves system functionality, it may survive. The focus must shift from the business process to the technical innovation.
How do I know if my invention will pass the Alice test?
Ask yourself: (1) Can this method be performed mentally or with pen and paper? (2) Does it simply automate a longstanding commercial or business practice? (3) Does it improve computer/technology functionality, or does it just use computers as tools? If your invention improves how technology works — rather than just using technology to accomplish a result — it's more likely to pass. Consulting a patent attorney early in the development process is the best way to assess eligibility and structure claims strategically.
What happens if my patent gets invalidated under Alice?
If a court invalidates your patent under § 101, that claim is unenforceable and cannot be asserted in litigation. If all claims are invalidated, the entire patent becomes worthless. Unlike invalidity based on prior art (§ 102/103), which can sometimes be overcome with narrower claims, § 101 invalidity often affects the fundamental concept and cannot be cured by amendment. This is why getting Alice right at the drafting stage is critical.
Can I appeal a § 101 rejection?
Yes. If the examiner rejects your application under § 101 and you cannot overcome the rejection through argument or amendment, you can appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). From there, you can further appeal to the Federal Circuit. However, § 101 appeals are difficult and expensive, and post-Alice reversal rates are low. The better strategy is to draft claims that avoid § 101 issues from the start.
Has Congress tried to change Alice?
Multiple bills have been introduced in Congress to legislatively overturn or clarify Alice, but as of 2026 none have passed. The most notable efforts include the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act and various versions of proposed § 101 reform. Until Congress acts, Alice remains binding precedent and the Mayo/Alice framework governs patent eligibility.
Concerned About Whether Your Invention Can Survive Alice Scrutiny?
Michael Meyer is a USPTO-registered patent attorney with substantial experience prosecuting software and technology patents in the post-Alice environment. He works with inventors to identify technical improvements, structure claims strategically, and respond to § 101 rejections — maximizing your chances of obtaining enforceable patent protection.
Schedule a consultation — or call 402-321-7532.
Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles, and comments on michaelmeyerlaw.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinions and views of the author as of the time of publication. For advice specific to your situation, please contact a licensed attorney.
