I just finished watching IPWatchdog give a live analysis of the Bilski decision on USTREAM. Here are some more of Gene Quinn’s thoughts on the Decision….
— “The Majority relied on a common meaning of processes when deciding that processes could be patentable, but clearly said the machine-or-transformation test could not be the only test.”
— “All nine justices agreed that an “abstract idea” is unpatentable. I don’t see where in the opinion the Court really defines what is an upatentable abstract idea.” (**read more about abstract ideas below)
— “We don’t have a new test from the Supreme Court. The Court did what it has done before… telling the Federal Circuit you got it wrong, go back and figure it out. We clearly need more definition from the Federal Circuit as to what is patentable.”
–Quinn concluded “Pure business methods are in trouble. But, if you write a good quality application that deals with software where there is a tangible element or some kind of physical structure, you’ll be good to go.”
–“I’m afraid the Decision raises more questions than it answers.”
For more on the Bilski decision, tune in on Wednesday, June 30th, at 1:00 pm for PLI’s Hot Topic Briefing: Bilski v. Kappos: The Supreme Court Rules on Patentable Subject Matter where an expert panel including Scott M. Alter of Faegre & Benson LLP and Douglas R. Nemec of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, co-chairs of PLI’s 4th Annual Patent Law Institute, Gene Quinn, patent attorney blogger and a principal lecturer in the PLI Patent Bar Review course and John M. White, PLI’s Director of Patent Professional Development as they discuss the implications of the decision, and what it may mean for your practice or your company.
** When discussing the concept of “abstract idea”, PatentlyO says: The one thing that all nine justices agreed upon is that Bilski’s method of hedging risk was not patentable because it is an abstract idea “just like the algorithms at issue in Benson and Flook.” It is unclear to me how patent office examiners will be able to apply the test for abstract ideas in any meaningful way. I suspect that they will not. Rather, the best advice for the USPTO is to focus on Section II-A of Justice Kennedy’s opinion. There, the opinion recognizes that Section 101 patent eligibility is “only a threshold test.” To be patentable, the invention must also “be novel, see §102, nonobvious, see §103, and fully and particularly described, see §112.”
More on the Bilski Decision……
Court rules against inventors in patent case (Associated Press)
Supreme Court Rules Narrowly In Bilski; Business Method & Software Patents Survive (Techdirt)
High Court Rejects Bilski But Leaves Patent Door Ajar (IPlaw 360)
The Supreme Court Keeps Business-Method Patents Alive (Forbes.com)
Tags: Abstract Idea, Bilski decision, Gene Qunn, hearing examiners Federal Circuit, IPWatchdog, machine-or-transformation test, patentability, Patentlyo, PLI, PLI Bilski Briefing, software patents, Supreme Court
You share in the PLI Practice Center community, so we just ask that you keep things civil. Leave out the personal attacks. Do not use profanity, ethnic or racial slurs, or take shots at anyone's sexual orientation or religion. If you can't be nice, we reserve the right to remove your material and ban users who violate our Terms of Service.