The five years since Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) have witnessed an explosion in patentable subject matter decisions ‐‐ and in political controversy over the doctrine. To its critics, Alice renders important inventions in medical diagnostics, biotechnology, and information technology unpatenable and therefore discouraging investment in critical market sector innovation. To its defenders, Alice offers a reliable, quick, and cheap way to invalidate weak patents owned by patent trolls, reducing patent holdup and protecting innovators. In response to these debates, we explore how the courts actually use Alice. We construct a unique dataset of every district court and federal circuit decision on patentable subject matter from July 2014 through June 2019 and categorize the patent plaintiffs in each case using the Stanford NPE Litigation Database. Once in court, patentable subject matter challenges are far more common in software/IT cases, and biotech/life science innovations are more likely to survive. Surprisingly, the entities most likely to lose their patents are not patent trolls but individual inventors and inventor‐started companies. Our findings have important implications for current legislative and judicial disputes over patent reform as some of the patent owners most impacted may be overlooked.

中文翻译：

---

爱丽丝会锁定专利巨魔吗？

自Alice Corp.诉CLS Bank International（573 US 208（2014））以来的五年中，可专利性主题决定以及该原则的政治争议激增。对它的批评者来说，爱丽丝（Alice）认为医学诊断，生物技术和信息技术领域的重要发明无法获得专利，因此不鼓励对关键市场领域创新的投资。对于其捍卫者，爱丽丝提供了一种可靠，快速且廉价的方法来使专利巨魔拥有的弱专利无效，减少专利持有量并保护创新者。针对这些辩论，我们探讨了法院实际上如何使用爱丽丝。从2014年7月到2019年6月，我们为每个地区法院和联邦巡回法院关于可专利标的的决定构建一个唯一的数据集，并使用Stanford NPE诉讼数据库对每种情况下的专利原告进行分类。一旦出庭，在软件/ IT案例中，可专利保护的主题挑战将更为普遍，而生物技术/生命科学创新则更有可能幸存。令人惊讶的是，最有可能失去专利的实体不是专利巨魔，而是个人发明家和发明家创办的公司。我们的发现对于当前有关专利改革的立法和司法纠纷具有重要意义，因为受影响最大的某些专利所有者可能会被忽略。生物技术/生命科学创新更有可能生存。令人惊讶的是，最有可能失去专利的实体不是专利巨魔，而是个人发明家和发明家创办的公司。我们的发现对当前有关专利改革的立法和司法纠纷具有重要意义，因为一些受影响最大的专利所有者可能会被忽略。生物技术/生命科学创新更有可能生存。令人惊讶的是，最有可能失去专利的实体不是专利巨魔，而是个人发明家和发明家创办的公司。我们的发现对于当前有关专利改革的立法和司法纠纷具有重要意义，因为受影响最大的某些专利所有者可能会被忽略。