Courts have discretion to reshape the patent landscape.

Following the surge of litigation inspired by the State Street decision, the U.S. Supreme Court issued several landmark decisions that have reshaped the patent landscape, generally favoring reforms that improve patent quality and minimize opportunities for abuse or gamesmanship by patent holders.

Bilski v. Kappos (2010). This decision narrowed the scope of patent eligibility, effectively closing the door on the problematic business-method and software patents permissible under the State Street decision. The Supreme Court ruled that the machine-or-transformation test (under which a patent claim qualifies for consideration if the process either is implemented by a particular machine in a non-conventional and non-trivial manner or else transforms an article from one state to another) is not the sole test for determining patentability and that abstract ideas are not patentable.

Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (2012). This case involved a patent on a method for determining the optimal dosage of a drug. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the patent was invalid because it effectively claimed patentability for a law of nature (the body’s reaction to a particular drug). This is not patentable subject matter; rather, any patent application centered on a law of nature must include additional elements in order to establish a patentable claim.

Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (2013). In a unanimous decision with significant impacts on both biotechnology and genetic research, the Court ruled that human and other naturally occurring gene sequences are not patentable, even when isolated from the genome. Again, concerned about potentially adverse impacts on innovation and discovery, the Court asserted that, absent additional human intervention, neither laws of nature nor natural phenomena are eligible for patents.

Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014). This case further refined and narrowed the scope of patent-eligible subject matter, particularly for business-method and software patents, which, as noted, had become problematic after the State Street decision. The Court established a two-step test that determines whether a patent application’s claims relate to an abstract idea and whether the patent application’s claims transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.

Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. (2014). Here, the Court addressed the problem of overly broad or ambiguous patent claims. Patent claims must be clear enough for experts in the field to understand what the invention covers; otherwise, the patent may be held invalid for reasons of indefiniteness. Specifically, Section 112 of the U.S. Patent Act requires that patent claims be definite. This decision elevated the standard for clarity when filing for a patent. In other words, a patent is granted with the expectation that it will contribute to the intellectual commons, and a lack of clarity with respect to the scope of the invention impedes this expansion of knowledge.

Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. (2014). This decision lowered the bar for “fee shifting,” or awarding attorney fees to the prevailing party in patent cases. The Court found that an “exceptional” case (which justifies fee shifting) can include considerations like whether a party’s case is especially weak or unreasonable. The goal was to discourage litigation brought by patent assertion entities (the “patent trolls” from earlier) using frivolous or unreasonable litigation tactics. The decision was motivated by a desire to combat perceived abuses and excessive litigation in the patent system.

Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management Systems, Inc. (2014). Released in conjunction with its Octane Fitness decision, the Supreme Court held that appeals courts should defer to district courts’ determinations as to whether to award attorney fees in patent cases. This decision was a clear attempt to address the issue of frivolous patent litigation by granting more authority to district courts when considering fee shifting in instances of unreasonable or weak patent litigation.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (2015). In this case, the Supreme Court held that a district court decision about claim construction in a patent case must be viewed as fact rather than as law and, therefore, should receive substantial deference when reviewed by the Federal Circuit Court. In other words, when reviewing a decision, the higher court should defer to the lower court with respect to findings of fact and technical details, such as the specific language in a patent claim. According to the decision, the higher court also should focus more on the application of the law rather than a review of the facts. By increasing deference to the factual findings of the lower court, this decision aimed to improve the ability of lower courts to resolve patent litigation decisively.

TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC (2017). This case significantly restricted the locations where patent infringement lawsuits can be filed, effectively ending the practice of forum shopping in patent cases—particularly in the Eastern District of Texas, where a single judge in a town of 24,000 was handling 25 percent of the nation’s patent litigation. This decision continued the broader trend of U.S. Supreme Court rulings aimed at reining in perceived abuses in patent litigation.

Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC (2018). In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the inter partes review (IPR) process, the administrative process for challenging the validity of patents before the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The Court made the important distinction that patents are a public right granted by the government and are legally different from tangible, physical property rights. Accordingly, a non-Article III tribunal can review patents outside of the regular court system. In addition to upholding the IPR process established under the AIA, this decision highlighted the differences between physical property rights and the rights imbued in a patent.

In summary, these 10 rulings reflect a growing concern within the U.S. Supreme Court about the economic costs of overly broad patent protections. In general, the Supreme Court has pursued a more balanced patent system while taking steps to combat gamesmanship and frivolous litigation. As a result, the Court has narrowed the scope of patent eligibility—particularly for abstract ideas, business methods, and software—while emphasizing the need for clearer, more precise patent claims. This trend aims to improve patent quality and prevent overly broad and low-quality patents from stifling innovation.