Vagueness of the Alice/Mayo framework causes litigation floods
David J. Kappos, 24 - attorney and former government official who served as Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office from 2009 to 2013 “Written Testimony to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property Regarding PERA”, 1/23, https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2024-01-23_-_testimony_-_kappos.pdf //DH
The vagueness and randomness of the Alice/Mayo framework have also enabled patent infringers to exploit Section 101 as a litigation weapon exacting unnecessary burdens and costs on good-faith patent holders and the courts, further disincentivizing investment and innovation. Patent infringers now routinely raise Section 101 as a defense, often merely as a strategy to complicate and prolong litigation, rather than as a good-faith defense. One analysis found that from 2012 to 2014 (when Alice was decided), Section 101 was raised in just two Rule 12(b)(6) motions across the country each year. In the year after Alice, that number rose to 36 motions, and by 2019, accused infringers were filing nearly 100 such motions each year.8