Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> John Palfrey
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Intellectual Property Law
: John PalfreyIn re Bilski
By palfrey
The CAFC today decided a much-anticipated patent law case, In re Bilski. The opinion is here.
- If upheld, it could mean a significant narrowing of what constitutes patentable subject matter as a business methods patent.
- The State Street formulation might be out in the process (pages 19-20 of the opinion; on p. 20: “Therefore, we also conclude that the ‘useful, concrete and tangible result’ inquiry is inadequate and reaffirm that the machine-or-transformation test outlined by the Supreme Court is the proper test to apply.”).
- The court makes plain that some business methods and software patents can still issue, but they’d need to meet the machine-or-transformation test. (Fn. 23, e.g.: “Therefore, although invited to do so by several amici, we decline to adopt a broad exclusion over software or any other such category of subject matter beyond the exclusion of claims drawn to fundamental principles set forth by the Supreme Court.”)
- The court plainly didn’t think much of the claim itself, making this a great set of facts for anyone wishing to shrink what is patentable and to take a crack at eliminating business methods patents altogether. One gets a hint of the court’s view of the claim in the description of the invention: “…Applicants here seek to claim a non-transformative process that encompasses a purely mental process of performing requisite mathematical calculations without the aid of a computer or any other device, mentally identifying those transactions that the calculations have revealed would hedge each other’s risks, and performing the post-solution step of consummating those transactions. … [W]hile the claimed process contains physical steps (initiating, identifying), it does not involve transforming an article into a different state or thing. Therefore, Applicants’ claim is not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter under § 101.” (p. 32)
Patently-O has a nice explication, as always, plus an extraordinary set of comments.
Full post as published by John Palfrey on October 30, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bilski: Much Ado About (almost) Nothing
Ex Parte Bilski: Once Again Rethinking the Scope of Patentable Subject Matter
A Madness to its Method: Cert Petition Filed in Bilski
Liveblogging: How Did We Get to Bilski and What Can We Do About It
Bilski and Continued Uncertainty in Patent Subject Matter
In Re Bilski En Banc Oral Arguments.
Gardner: Patent Bar Should Use Its High Priced Skills to Overcome Bilski et al.
"Bilski Heads to the Supreme Court"









