Where the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court differ is that the former is reading it broadly, while the latter is trying to reinforce narrowing exceptions to the statutory text it created itself.
That would be a compelling story, except that the CAFC and Supreme Court came to the same conclusion on this case, both on the judgement (that the patent was invalid), and largely on the rationale (the plurality of 5 out of 10 judges in the en banc rehearing found that all the claims were patent-ineligible as the Supreme Court found, and a majority of 7 found that at least some of the claims were patent-ineligible.)
I know, I meant more generally. I think the original panel opinion, vacated en banc, which required it to be "manifestly evident" that the idea is abstract is an example of reading the statute broadly.
Comments
That would be a compelling story, except that the CAFC and Supreme Court came to the same conclusion on this case, both on the judgement (that the patent was invalid), and largely on the rationale (the plurality of 5 out of 10 judges in the en banc rehearing found that all the claims were patent-ineligible as the Supreme Court found, and a majority of 7 found that at least some of the claims were patent-ineligible.)
I know, I meant more generally. I think the original panel opinion, vacated en banc, which required it to be "manifestly evident" that the idea is abstract is an example of reading the statute broadly.