Not anymore, all LZW patents expired by 2004 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lempel%E2%80%93Ziv%E2%80%93Welch#Patents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lempel%E2%80%

Not anymore, all LZW patents expired by 2004 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lempel%E2%80%93Ziv%E2%80%93Welch#Patents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lempel%E2%80%93Ziv%E2%80%93Wel...), long before the 2014 Alice decision we're talking about. We don't know if the LZW patent would have survived post-Alice, but from the above link it looks like it would have been on thin ice: "At least one commentator has questioned that, however, because encryption largely consists of mathematical operations using modular arithmetic and theorems of Euler.[41] Yet, as the commentator points out, in the Flook case the Supreme Court said: "As the CCPA has explained, 'if a claim is directed essentially to a method of calculating, using a mathematical formula, even if the solution is for a specific purpose, the claimed method is nonstatutory [patent ineligible].' " Furthermore, in July 2014, just after the Alice decision came down, a Federal Circuit panel held a patent ineligible, quoting Flook and adding: "Without additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible."[42] Judge Bryson's comments, quoted above, may therefore be more predictive of the likely outcomes of future software-related patent cases, including encryption ones, than counsel's assurances during oral argument in the Alice case."