6 Keys You Need So You Can Profit by Patenting Software (Part 1 of 6) Introduction: Why Alice Matters

Author

Picture of Craige Thompson

Craige Thompson

Craige is an experienced engineer, accomplished patent attorney, and bestselling author.

Table of contents

Share

✎Executive Summary2 min read
Key Takeaways
  • The 2014 Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp v. CLS Bank introduced a two-step test for patent eligibility that drastically changed the landscape for software patents.
  • Since Alice, software patent claims must be carefully tailored to survive this two-step scrutiny, and missteps can lead to failed applications, lost investment, and a weakened competitive position.
  • Having skilled, up-to-date patent counsel who understands the nuances of the Alice decision is presented as essential to securing strong, valuable software patents in this post-Alice environment.
  • The article previews an upcoming case study on DDR Holdings v. Digital River as an example of successful patent drafting in the post-Alice era.
The Bottom Line: Anyone seeking to patent software today should treat working with patent counsel experienced in post-Alice claim drafting as a non-negotiable first step, given how much the Alice decision raised the bar for software patent eligibility.

Introduction: Why Alice Matters

Alice Corp v. CLS Bank was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014 that drastically changed the software patent landscape. It presented a two-step test for patent eligibility, turning many pre-existing notions on their head. If you’re looking to patent software technology today, understanding this decision is not just useful—it’s critical.

The Complexity of the Post-Alice Era

The Alice decision has made patenting software more challenging, adding a layer of complexity and uncertainty. Software claims now need to be tailored carefully to pass the scrutiny of the Alice two-step test. Any misstep can lead to failed patent applications, loss of investment, and, even worse, a compromised competitive edge.

Skilled Counsel: The Make-or-Break Factor

In this era of increased scrutiny, having skilled patent counsel is essential. You need experts who are up-to-date, understand the subtleties of the Alice decision, and can navigate through the complexity to secure strong patents. The quality of your patents, and hence their business value, is heavily reliant on your patent firm’s skillset.

Actionable Business Take-away

If you want to protect your software innovations and derive tangible business value from them, investing in a patent firm with proven experience in the post-Alice landscape is a non-negotiable first step.


Next Up: Demystifying a Landmark Software Patent Case

Intrigued about how this plays out in the real world? In the next article, we’ll dive into a case study that perfectly illustrates the power of skilled patent drafting in the post-Alice era. We’re going to look at the DDR Holdings v. Digital River case and dissect why it has become a seminal reference for patenting software technologies today. You won’t want to miss this—stay tuned!

To read the next article in this series immediately, click here now.


P.S. If you want to learn even more about the correct ways to protect software with patents in the post-Alice era, check out Craige’s Litigation Quality PatentCast here.

Click here to listen to Craige’s PatentCast on Protecting Software with Patents

Complimentary Patent Needs Assessment

related articles

What Does "Patent Pending" Actually Mean? (And What It Doesn't Protect)

What Does Patent Pending Mean? (And What It Doesn’t Protect)

What does patent pending mean? Not that anyone has to stop copying you. Here's what the label
Patent Maintenance Fees in 2026: What You Owe, When, and What Happens If You Miss One

Patent Maintenance Fees 2026: What You Owe, When, and What Happens If You Miss One

Patent maintenance fees 2026 fall due at 3.5, 7.5 and 11.5 years. Miss one and your patent
The USPTO's 2026 AI-Inventorship Guidance, Explained

USPTO AI Inventorship Guidance: What Changed in 2026

The USPTO AI inventorship guidance changed in late 2025. Here's what changed, why, and what to document