alice 计算机专利被无效，因为不是授权主体 自然法则，自然现象，抽象概念0001.docxVIP

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 20XX Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions fbr the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus ALICE CORPORATION PTY. LTD. u CLS BANKINTERNATIONAL ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FORTHE FEDERAL CIRCUIT No. 13-298. Argued March 31, 20XX一Decided June 19, 20XX Petitioner Alice Corporation is the assignee of several patents that disclose a scheme for mitigating settlement risk,” i.e., the risk that only one party to an agreed-upon financial exchange will satisfy its obligation. In particular, the patent claims are designed to facilitate the exchange of financial obligations between two parties by using a computer system as a third-party intermediary. The patents in suit claim (1) a method for exchanging financial obligations, (2) a computer system configured to carry out the method for exchanging obligations, and (3) a computer-readable medium containing program code for performing the method of exchanging obligations. Respondents (together, CLS Bank), who operate a global network that facilitates currency transactions, filed suit against petitioner, arguing that the patent claims at issue are invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed. Petitioner counterclaimed, alleging infringement. After Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U. S. 593, was decided, the District Court held that all of the claims were ineligible for patent protection under 35 U. S. C. §101 because they are directed to an abstract idea. The en banc Federal Circuit affirmed. Held: Because the claims are drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea, they are not patent eligible under §101. Pp. 5-17. (a) The Court has long held that §101, whic