"Daniel Nazer, a staff attorney on the Electronic Frontier Foundation's intellectual property team, thinks Tinder's case faces many of the same pitfalls. "I think most utility patents in this space face the same problems," he says. (Utility patents protect new machines, processes, and other inventions). He specifically cites Alice Corp v CLS Bank International, a landmark Supreme Court case from 2014 that found an abstract idea doesn't become eligible for a patent just because it's implemented on a computer. The decision is largely seen as having been crucial in helping software companies fight back against patent trolls. He thinks the case decision makes Tinder's patents invalid. IAC, Match's parent company, declined to comment on ongoing litigation."
The Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School is a leader in the study of the law and policy around the Internet and other emerging technologies.