BuySafe Alice'd in its appeal at the CAFC

Buysafe did not do well in its appeal against Google



This case involves claims directed to creating familiar
commercial arrangements by use of computers and net-
works. The district court held the asserted
claims invalid because they cover subject matter ineligible for patenting
under 35 U.S.C. § 101. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. ,
964 F. Supp. 2d 331 (D. Del. 2013).
Under the approach to section 101 affirmed by
the Supreme Court in the recent decision in
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the district court’s holding is correct.



The case had not gone far at the trial level:


The district court granted Google’s motion
for judgment on the pleadings , holding that the asserted
claims fall outside section 101.
The court concluded that the
patent “describes a well-known, and widely-understood
concept—a third party guarantee of a sales transaction
—and then applied that concept using conventional comput-
er technology and the Internet.” buySAFE, 964 F. Supp.
2d at 335–36.



The CAFC noted:



Given the new Supreme Court authority in
this delicate area, and the simplicity of the present case
under that authority, there is no need to parse
our own precedents here.