One might think that the issue of what qualifies as patentable subject matter has long been resolved by either the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court, particularly since the patent statute itself is explicit on the subject,1 and has been since 1952. One would be wrong, although excuses arguably exist. For instance, it certainly would be fair to point out that technology has evolved over time so it has been difficult to keep up—especially since 1952, and especially given the advancement of both the computer industry, with its speedy networks, devices and super chips (and gadgets), and the life sciences industry, with its enlightening predictive gene sequencing techniques and devices.
But should such advances cloak the fundamental need for a uniform, well-defined, highly regarded and respected standard or test for determining patent eligibility? After all, even this column has addressed the topic many times, starting back in 1998 (“‘State Street’: Virtually Anything Is Patentable” and “A Computerized Business Method Is Patentable Subject Matter”), in 1999 (“Broadened Scope of Protection”), then again in 2008 and 2010 discussing Bilski v. Kappas, and most recently on July 24, 2013, in reporting on CLS Bank v. Alice Corp.,2 recently appealed3 to the Supreme Court. Now comes another hotly divided Federal Circuit decision worthy of attention, Accenture Global Services and Accenture v. Guidewire Software, recently decided on Sept. 5, 2013.
