Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

PersonalWeb Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2020-1543, 2020-1553, 2020-1554 · judgment August 12, 2021


Certiorari denied · April 4, 2022
Pre-decision estimate: 2% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Question presented

In Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)—a case about the patentability of computerimplemented business methods—this Court confirmed that inventions “improv[ing] the functioning of the computer itself” or “effect[ing] an improvement in any other technology or technical field” remain patent-eligible. Id. at 225-226. Lower courts have not followed that instruction. Petitioner’s patents claim a novel computer file system that significantly improved fundamental computer networking operations—an improvement in a “technical field.” Yet the Federal Circuit, in a precedential decision, canceled Petitioner’s patents as being directed to a pure “abstract idea.” Petitioner is not alone. Since Alice, the Federal Circuit has found, as a matter of law and without any guiding principles, the vast majority of issued patents in the computing arts patent-ineligible. The list of inventions that the Federal Circuit has deemed categorically “abstract” has grown so large as to place a cloud of invalidity over all computer-based patents. Certiorari is needed to provide guiding principles for patent-eligibility in the computing arts, and to restore the critical incentive to innovate in this essential technological field. The question presented is: 1. How should courts determine whether a patent for a computer-implemented invention is patent-eligible because it “improve[s] the functioning of the computer itself” or “effect[s] an improvement in any other technology or technical field” under Alice?

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Lawrence M. Hadley
Glaser Weil Fink Howard Avchen & Shapiro

For respondent
Dan L. Bagatell
Perkins Coie LLP

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Proceedings

  1. Apr 04 2022
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Mar 16 2022
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/1/2022.
  3. Feb 17 2022
    Waiver of right of respondents Dell Inc. and VMware, Inc. to respond filed.
  4. Feb 14 2022
    Waiver of right of respondent Facebook, Inc. to respond filed.
  5. Feb 14 2022
    Waiver of right of respondents Google LLC and YouTube, LLC to respond filed.
  6. Feb 03 2022
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 9, 2022)