--- title: "Software Patents 2026: Alice Eligibility and Claim Drafting" description: "Does software qualify for patents in 2026 under Alice? Yes, if you claim a concrete technical improvement. What survives § 101 and how to draft claims that" lang: en json-ld: | [ { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "Organization", "name": "Global Trademark Company LLC", "url": "https://globaltrademarkcompany.com", "logo": "https://globaltrademarkcompany.com/gtc-logo.svg", "description": "Multi-practice IP and business legal firm. Trademarks in 100+ jurisdictions, patents in 10 + PCT, copyrights under Berne. Operating since 2016.", "foundingDate": "2016", "sameAs": [ "https://www.linkedin.com/company/globaltrademarkcompany/", "https://www.trustpilot.com/review/globaltrademark.co" ], "contactPoint": [ { "@type": "ContactPoint", "telephone": "+1-510-973-4964", "contactType": "customer service", "areaServed": "US", "availableLanguage": [ "English" ] }, { "@type": "ContactPoint", "telephone": "+44-7453-347853", "contactType": "customer service", "areaServed": "GB", "availableLanguage": [ "English" ] }, { "@type": "ContactPoint", "telephone": "+91-6397-329955", "contactType": "customer service", "areaServed": "IN", "availableLanguage": [ "English", "Hindi" ] } ], "address": [ { "@type": "PostalAddress", "streetAddress": "712 H Street NE, Suite 2094", "addressLocality": "Washington", "addressRegion": "DC", "postalCode": "20002", "addressCountry": "US" }, { "@type": "PostalAddress", "streetAddress": "YSC Complex, 4th floor, A-400, 12 Ajit Singh House, Sri Aurobindo Marg", "addressLocality": "New Delhi", "addressRegion": "Delhi", "postalCode": "110016", "addressCountry": "IN" } ] }, { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "BlogPosting", "headline": "Software Patents, Alice, and § 101 in 2026: What Is Eligible and How to Draft Claims", "description": "Does software qualify for patents in 2026 under Alice? Yes, if you claim a concrete technical improvement. What survives § 101 and how to draft claims that", "image": "https://zbdppqwokjgncujmplfm.supabase.co/storage/v1/object/public/application-files/blog/software-patent-eligibility-alice-2026.jpg?t=1780411348609", "datePublished": "2026-03-12T09:00:00+00:00", "dateModified": "2026-08-28T15:23:21.562288+00:00", "inLanguage": "en-US", "isAccessibleForFree": true, "articleSection": "legal", "keywords": "Alice, § 101, software patents, USPTO, technical effect, inventive concept", "wordCount": 1533, "citation": [ { "@type": "CreativeWork", "name": "Software Patent Eligibility — Can You Patent Software in 2026?", "url": "https://www.shannonwarren.com/resources/software-patent-eligibility" }, { "@type": "CreativeWork", "name": "Which countries allow software patents? (Global overview)", "url": "https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/which-countries-allow-software-patents/" }, { "@type": "CreativeWork", "name": "Post‑Alice § 101 Eligibility Roadmap for Software Inventions", "url": "https://www.knobbe.com/blog/post-alice-section-101-eligibility-roadmap-software-inventions/" }, { "@type": "CreativeWork", "name": "Patent Eligibility of Software in the Wake of Alice", "url": "https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/patent-eligibility-of-software-in-the-wake-of-the-alice-corp-v.html" }, { "@type": "CreativeWork", "name": "Understanding Alice", "url": "https://henry.law/blog/understanding-alice/" }, { "@type": "CreativeWork", "name": "The current state of 35 U.S.C. § 101 and software patents", "url": "https://www.vklaw.com/ImagineThatIPLawBlog/the-current-state-of-35-u-s-c-101-and-software-patents" }, { "@type": "CreativeWork", "name": "The Complete Guide to the Alice Test (2026)", "url": "https://www.michaelmeyerlaw.com/blog/alice-patent-eligibility/" }, { "@type": "CreativeWork", "name": "Alice Software Patent Success", "url": "https://thompsonpatentlaw.com/alice-software-patent-success/" } ], "author": { "@type": "Person", "name": "Rajatpreet Singh Modi", "jobTitle": "Founder & Attorney", "image": "https://globaltrademarkcompany.com/team/rajat.jpg", "url": "https://globaltrademarkcompany.com/team/rajatpreet-singh-modi" }, "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "Global Trademark Company LLC", "url": "https://globaltrademarkcompany.com", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://globaltrademarkcompany.com/gtc-logo.svg" } }, "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://globaltrademarkcompany.com/blog/software-patent-eligibility-alice-2026" } }, { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": 1, "name": "Home", "item": "https://globaltrademarkcompany.com" }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": 2, "name": "Blog", "item": "https://globaltrademarkcompany.com/blog" }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": 3, "name": "Software Patents, Alice, and § 101 in 2026: What Is Eligible and How to Draft Claims", "item": "https://globaltrademarkcompany.com/blog/software-patent-eligibility-alice-2026" } ] }, { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "FAQPage", "mainEntity": [ { "@type": "Question", "name": "Did § 101 change for software patents in 2025–2026?", "acceptedAnswer": { "@type": "Answer", "text": "No change is identified in the cited 2025–2026 practitioner sources. Alice/Mayo remains the controlling framework, and guides continue to apply it in practice." } }, { "@type": "Question", "name": "What kinds of software claims tend to be eligible under Alice?", "acceptedAnswer": { "@type": "Answer", "text": "Claims that recite specific improvements to computer functionality or another technology fare better. Think new data structures, faster or more efficient processing techniques, or architectural changes that improve system behavior." } }, { "@type": "Question", "name": "Is generic computer implementation enough?", "acceptedAnswer": { "@type": "Answer", "text": "No. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, or using well‑understood, routine, and conventional components, does not add the inventive concept Alice requires." } }, { "@type": "Question", "name": "Are AI or ML inventions patent‑eligible under § 101?", "acceptedAnswer": { "@type": "Answer", "text": "They can be, but not because they use AI. Eligibility turns on whether the claim presents a specific technical improvement, not just applying known models to data or business tasks." } }, { "@type": "Question", "name": "Do method, system, or computer‑readable‑medium formats change the Alice analysis?", "acceptedAnswer": { "@type": "Answer", "text": "No. All formats are analyzed under the same Alice/Mayo framework. Use multiple formats to tell the same technical story from different angles." } }, { "@type": "Question", "name": "How is the USPTO applying Alice in examination now?", "acceptedAnswer": { "@type": "Answer", "text": "The USPTO applies post‑Alice eligibility guidance and scrutinizes computer‑implemented claims closely. Drafting and arguing around concrete technical improvements improves outcomes." } } ] } ] --- [](/) - Trademarks - Patents - Copyrights - Data Privacy - Business Legal - [Pricing](/pricing) - Resources Sign inEN · USD Sign in 1. [Home](/) 2. / 3. [Blog](/blog) 4. / 5. Software Patents, Alice, and § 101 in 2026: What Is Eligible and How to Draft Claims [Back to Blog](/blog) legal # Software Patents, Alice, and § 101 in 2026: What Is Eligible and How to Draft Claims ![Rajatpreet Singh Modi](/team/rajat.jpg)Rajatpreet Singh Modi · Founder & International Trademark Attorney March 12, 2026 9 min read Share Last updated: August 28, 2026 ![Software Patents, Alice, and § 101 in 2026: What Is Eligible and How to Draft Claims](https://zbdppqwokjgncujmplfm.supabase.co/storage/v1/render/image/public/application-files/blog/software-patent-eligibility-alice-2026.jpg?width=1200&quality=80&resize=contain&t=1780411348609) In this article [What changed in 2026 for software eligibility?](#what-changed-in-2026-for-software-eligibility)[How does the Alice/Mayo test work, in plain English?](#how-does-the-alice-mayo-test-work-in-plain-english)[Which software claims tend to survive § 101 in 2026?](#which-software-claims-tend-to-survive-101-in-2026)[Red flags that trigger Alice rejections](#red-flags-that-trigger-alice-rejections)[How to draft software claims and a specification that pass § 101](#how-to-draft-software-claims-and-a-specification-that-pass-101)[A quick U.S. to Europe and China comparison](#a-quick-u-s-to-europe-and-china-comparison)[From our files: turning a near-failing claim into an allowed case](#from-our-files-turning-a-near-failing-claim-into-an-allowed-case)[Common AI/ML pitfalls under § 101](#common-ai-ml-pitfalls-under-101)[Should you file now or wait?](#should-you-file-now-or-wait)[Related reading](#related-reading)[FAQ](#faq) You can still patent software in the U.S. in 2026. The Alice/Mayo two‑step remains the test. Claims that automate business or mental steps on a generic computer are at risk. Claims that spell out a concrete improvement to computer functionality or another technology have a path. Here is how we draft for eligibility, and how the U.S. compares to Europe and China. ## What changed in 2026 for software eligibility? Nothing fundamental. The sources we track in 2025–2026 report no statutory amendment to 35 U.S.C. § 101 and no new Supreme Court decision replacing Alice. Practitioner guides continue to apply the same Alice/Mayo framework and focus on practical drafting tactics. - § 101 sets the four statutory categories and, through judicial exceptions, excludes laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. - Post‑Alice, the USPTO tightened subject matter scrutiny for computer‑implemented inventions. - Outcomes still vary by claim language and record. The safest path is to anchor the claims in a technical improvement, not a business result. ## How does the Alice/Mayo test work, in plain English? Step One asks whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception. For software, common exceptions are abstract ideas like fundamental economic practices, mathematical relationships, mental processes, or methods of organizing human activity. Step Two asks whether, if an exception is implicated, the claim adds an inventive concept that is significantly more than the exception. Using generic computers or well‑understood, routine, and conventional components is not enough. The added elements must do meaningful technical work. In practice, we draft and argue as if Step One and Step Two are a single conversation with the examiner: what is the specific technical improvement, and where do the claim elements show it working in the machine. ## Which software claims tend to survive § 101 in 2026? Short answer, the ones that improve how computers operate. Not how a business operates on a computer. Examples that often fare better include claims that recite: - A new data structure that reduces copying or memory pressure during lookups. - A scheduler that cuts inter‑thread contention by changing lock acquisition order or using a non‑blocking primitive. - A network protocol step that reduces packet retransmissions or head‑of‑line blocking. - A database index or compaction routine that shortens read amplification. - A security process that changes key handling or enclave boundaries to harden attack surfaces. - Sensor fusion logic that filters noise at the device level to improve downstream signal quality. By contrast, claims that simply say “receive data, analyze it, and act,” or “apply a model to rank customers,” usually fail unless the claim ties those steps to a concrete improvement in computer operation. ## Red flags that trigger Alice rejections We see the same patterns draw § 101 rejections across art units: - Results-only language like “optimize,” “improve,” or “configure a processor to,” without the how. - Swapping in a buzzword, for example “blockchain” or “neural network,” without a specific change to memory, storage, networking, or processing. - Stating that steps are performed “on a server,” “in the cloud,” or “using an app,” with no architectural detail. - Automated business rules, scoring, or pricing that a human could perform with pencil and paper. Each of these can be salvaged if the application teaches an actual system change or computing improvement and the claims are rewritten to recite it. ## How to draft software claims and a specification that pass § 101 Here is the playbook we use with inventors and product teams. 1) Frame a technical problem. Describe the computing bottleneck or failure mode. Example prompts: cache misses, queue contention, tail latency spikes, deadlocks, stale reads, memory churn, dropped packets, clock skew, power draw. 2) Describe the baseline system. Draw the pre‑invention pipeline, data layout, or protocol state machine. Put names on components so you can point to them in the claims. 3) Teach the concrete change. Spell out the new data structure, control loop, message format, memory layout, or scheduling rule. Use nouns and verbs the examiner can map to boxes in your drawings. 4) Tie to measurable effects. You do not need to promise numbers. Do explain the mechanism that reduces copying, cuts lock contention, shortens code paths, or increases cache locality. Mechanism beats marketing. 5) Claim the mechanism, not only the result. Avoid “configured to optimize.” Recite the steps, constraints, and how components interact. Example claim verbs: allocating, pinning, batching, coalescing, deduplicating, prefetching, checkpointing, compacting, retry‑backoff with jitter. 6) Include dependent claims that narrow with technical detail. Fallbacks should change how the computer works, not just who the user is or what business rule applies. 7) Draft multiple categories, but keep the same story. Method, system, and computer‑readable medium formats are all examined under Alice. Use each to express the same technical improvement from different angles. 8) Put evidence in the file when helpful. Diagrams, test setups, and inventor declarations that explain the mechanism can strengthen Step Two arguments. 9) Keep the business logic separate. If your product has pricing, scoring, or UX flows, describe them, but keep the claims that will face § 101 focused on the computing improvement. 10) During prosecution, lead with the improvement. Examiner interviews often resolve impasses once we walk line‑by‑line through the claim and the figure that shows the change in operation. ## A quick U.S. to Europe and China comparison - Europe. The EPO asks whether the claimed features produce a technical effect beyond a computer program as such. Features that contribute to the technical solution are considered for inventive step. Business aspects usually do not move the needle unless tied to a technical contribution. - China. Software‑related inventions are recognized where the claim presents a technical solution using technical means to achieve a technical effect. As in Europe, the focus is on a concrete technical contribution, not business automation. This is a high‑level snapshot to guide strategy. If your U.S. claims hinge on a business rule, expect to revise for Europe and China to foreground the technical effect. ## From our files: turning a near-failing claim into an allowed case A product team brought us a ranking engine for aggregating supplier offers. Their draft claim read like a flowchart of business steps. The examiner hit it with § 101. We sat with the engineers, traced the pipeline, and found the real improvement. Their system used a graph‑based index that avoided repeated deserialization and cut contention in the hot path. We rewrote the independent claim to recite the index layout, the lock‑free merge operation, and the cache‑aware fetch. We amended the figures to show where in memory each piece lived. On the next action, eligibility was withdrawn and the case moved forward on prior art. The lesson is simple. If you can point to a machine‑level change, claim it. If you cannot, consider keeping it as a trade secret or building more technical depth before you file. ## Common AI/ML pitfalls under § 101 Saying “use a model to classify” does not rescue a claim. Examiners look for a technical improvement such as a new training pipeline that reduces memory churn, a data structure for streaming inference, or a hardware‑aware batching routine that stabilizes tail latency. Focus the claims on the mechanism that changes how the computer processes data. ## Should you file now or wait? If your innovation is mostly a business rule on a server, waiting rarely helps. If you can document a technical improvement and show it in the architecture, you can file now. A well‑written provisional can capture that detail while you gather more evidence, then you harden it in the non‑provisional. Ready to move? Our attorney‑led team has been at this since 2016. We prosecute software patents in major jurisdictions and coordinate claim strategy across markets so the same technical story carries through. ## Related reading - [US Provisional vs Non-Provisional 2026](/blog/us-provisional-vs-non-provisional-2026) - [PCT National Phase US Entry 2026 Guide](/blog/pct-national-phase-us-entry-2026) - [AI Inventorship Post-DABUS: US/EU 2026](/blog/ai-inventorship-dabus-rulings-2026) ### Need help with your trademark? Get a free trademark check from our specialists, no obligation. Speak with a patent attorney ## Frequently Asked Questions ### Did § 101 change for software patents in 2025–2026? ### What kinds of software claims tend to be eligible under Alice? ### Is generic computer implementation enough? ### Are AI or ML inventions patent‑eligible under § 101? ### Do method, system, or computer‑readable‑medium formats change the Alice analysis? ### How is the USPTO applying Alice in examination now? ## Sources 1. [Software Patent Eligibility — Can You Patent Software in 2026?](https://www.shannonwarren.com/resources/software-patent-eligibility) 2. [Which countries allow software patents? (Global overview)](https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/which-countries-allow-software-patents/) 3. [Post‑Alice § 101 Eligibility Roadmap for Software Inventions](https://www.knobbe.com/blog/post-alice-section-101-eligibility-roadmap-software-inventions/) 4. [Patent Eligibility of Software in the Wake of Alice](https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/patent-eligibility-of-software-in-the-wake-of-the-alice-corp-v.html) 5. [Understanding Alice](https://henry.law/blog/understanding-alice/) 6. [The current state of 35 U.S.C. § 101 and software patents](https://www.vklaw.com/ImagineThatIPLawBlog/the-current-state-of-35-u-s-c-101-and-software-patents) 7. [The Complete Guide to the Alice Test (2026)](https://www.michaelmeyerlaw.com/blog/alice-patent-eligibility/) 8. [Alice Software Patent Success](https://thompsonpatentlaw.com/alice-software-patent-success/) ![Rajatpreet Singh Modi](/team/rajat.jpg) Rajatpreet Singh Modi Founder & International Trademark Attorney Software patents Alice/Mayo § 101 USPTO EPO technical effect AI/ML ## Related Articles [ ![Curious Case File: How FIFA and PUMA Both Lost “World Cup 2022” in Switzerland—and What That Teaches Non‑Sponsors for 2026](https://zbdppqwokjgncujmplfm.supabase.co/storage/v1/render/image/public/application-files/blog/pipeline/fd0ef27f-8c5b-4631-9cbf-c0173ad9a79b.jpg?width=400&quality=75&resize=contain&t=1781216891979) ### Curious Case File: How FIFA and PUMA Both Lost “World Cup 2022” in Switzerland—and What That Teaches Non‑Sponsors for 2026 Jun 11, 2026 ](/blog/curious-case-file-how-fifa-and-puma-both-lost-world-cup-2022-in-switzerland-and-what-that-teaches-non-sponsors-for-2026)[ ![Shopify IP Takedown Enforcement 2026](https://zbdppqwokjgncujmplfm.supabase.co/storage/v1/render/image/public/application-files/blog/shopify-ip-takedown-enforcement-2026.jpg?width=400&quality=75&resize=contain&t=1780326604659) ### Shopify IP Takedown Enforcement 2026 Apr 25, 2026 ](/blog/shopify-ip-takedown-enforcement-2026)[ ![eBay Marketplace IP Takedown 2026](https://zbdppqwokjgncujmplfm.supabase.co/storage/v1/render/image/public/application-files/blog/ebay-marketplace-ip-takedown-2026.jpg?width=400&quality=75&resize=contain&t=1780326610950) ### eBay Marketplace IP Takedown 2026 Apr 23, 2026 ](/blog/ebay-marketplace-ip-takedown-2026) ## Site footer ![Global Trademark Company](/assets/gtc-logo-white-DQ8YcvVd.svg) Secure Every Step of Your Growth Trusted by brands since 2016 [hello@globaltrademarkcompany.com ](mailto:hello@globaltrademarkcompany.com) [](https://www.linkedin.com/company/globaltrademarkcompany/) [+1 510-973-4964 (US & International) ](tel:+15109734964)[+44 7453 347853 (UK & EU) ](tel:+447453347853)[+91 6397-329955 (India) ](tel:+916397329955) ### Company - [About us](/about) - [Contact](/contact) - [Our lawyers](/lawyers) - [Case studies](/case-studies) - [Careers](/careers) - [Press](/press) - [B2B partners](/b2b-partners) - [GTC Advantage](/gtc-advantage) ### Services - [All services →](/services) - [US trademark](/services/us-trademark) - [Madrid Protocol](/services/madrid-protocol-filing) - [Patent filing](/services/patent-filing) - [Copyright registration](/services/copyright-registration) - [Commercial contracts](/services/nda-drafting) - [Fractional GC](/services/fractional-gc) - [Data privacy](/services/gdpr-compliance) ### Resources - [Blog](/blog) - [Trademark Glossary](/resources/glossary) - [Country Guides](/resources/country-guides) - [Specimen Guide](/resources/specimen-guide) - [Class Assist](/class-assist) - [Free TM Check](/free-trademark-check) - [Free Consultation](/free-consultation) - [Reviews on Trustpilot](https://www.trustpilot.com/review/globaltrademark.co) ### Get Started - [Login](/login) - [Sign up](/signup) - [Application status](/application-status) - [Terms of service](/terms) - [Privacy policy](/privacy) - [Refund & credit policy](/refund-policy) - [Sitemap](/sitemap) ### Our Offices United States 712 H Street NE, Suite 2094 Washington DC 20002 India 4th Floor, A-400, 12 Ajit Singh House Sri Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi 110016 European Union Iskar 75 Str., office 2 Sofia, Bulgaria China 2nd floor No. 51 Zhongshan Yi Road Guangzhou, China United Kingdom Unit 1A, 1 Bridge Road Camberley, Surrey GU15 2QR We accept: ![Visa](/assets/visa-logo-DngOCJX3.webp) ![Apple Pay]() Stripe Payoneer Wire [Trustpilot](https://www.trustpilot.com/review/globaltrademark.co) © 2026 Global Trademark Company LLC. All rights reserved. [Legal Notice](/terms)[Privacy Policy](/privacy)[Cookie Policy](/cookies)[Refund Policy](/refund-policy)Cookie Settings Hi! How can we help you today? Cookies help us improve the site. We use cookies to improve your experience, analyze site traffic, and personalize content. [Learn more](/cookies) Manage Manage Preferences RejectAccept