Patent Law Practice Center

Bilski Decision: No Concrete Guidance On Test For Determining Patentability of Processes

Many of us are still trying to digest yesterday’s Supreme Court decision on the Bilski v. Kappos case and will most certainly be reading and re-reading the opinion many times before drawing any conclusions.  It will be interesting to see how the various players in the patent community interpret the decision and what they believe will be the significance of the ruling.  I reached out to several of the Practice Center Contributor’s asking them to weigh in on the decision.  Here is what Jeanne M. Gills, Vice Chair, IP Department  at Foley and Lardner had to say….

The Supreme Court’s ruling is fairly narrow.  The Court merely affirmed the finding of unpatentability because the Bilski invention was viewed as abstract ideas.  It was widely viewed that the particular Bilski invention was unpatentable, so that affirmance was not surprising.  Also, I believe many believed that the Supreme Court would not find that business methods were categorically unpatentable (since some business methods could be patentable provided they meant certain criteria).  (While this was a close and split (5-4) decision, I do think that this was the right result, and the alternative could have put some issued patents in jeopardy.)  What the decision fails to do is offer more concrete guidance as to what constitutes an appropriate test for determining patentability of processes.  By rejecting the “machine or transformation” test as the sole or exclusive test, this leaves the door ajar for other tests to be fashioned.  I do not think it is sufficient to say that any test that is consistent with the patent statutory language offers much guidance.  Hence, the Supreme Court gave the lower courts and the Federal Circuit flexibility to devise other tests or criteria for evaluating the patentability of processes in general and business methods in particular. (more…)

More on the Bilski Decision….

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. (more…)

Supremes Decide Bilski: Machine or Transformation Not the Only Test, Bilski Not Patentable

Written by Gene Quinn (IPWatchdog and Practice Center Contributor)

Bilski v. Kappos has finally been handed down by the United States Supreme Court, in what has become the most highly anticipated patent decision of all time. The questions presented to the Court for consideration were: (1) whether the Federal Circuit erred by creating the so-called “machine or transformation” test, which requires a process to be tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or transform an article into a different state or thing, in order to be patentable subject matter; and (2) whether the machine or transformation test contradicts Congressional intent (pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 273) to allow for business methods to be patented.

The Supreme Court held that the machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for patent eligibility under §101, and that the Federal Circuit erred when it ruled that it was the singular test to determine whether an invention is patentable subject matter. Delivering the opinion for the Court was Justice Kennedy.  There were no dissents, only concurring opinions, which is in and of itself a little surprising, at least at first glance until you realize that the Justices all agreed Bilski’s invention ought not to be patentable, but some, such as Justices Stevens and Breyer would have found all business methods unpatentable.  In any event, Kennedy explained that the Federal Circuit decision ignored well established rules of statutory interpretation, and further explained that there is no ordinary, contemporary common meaning of the word “process” that would require it to be tied to a machine or the transformation of an article. Nevertheless, the machine or transformation test may be useful as an investigative tool, but it cannot be the sole test. (more…)

Bilski v. Kappos: A Recap Before Decision Day

 

As the entire patent community waits with bated breath for the Bilski decision, it seems like the perfect time to recap the course of events that have brought us here.  Yesterday, IPWatchdog had a guest blogger, Robert M. Suarez, who did just that in his article, “Mr. Bilski Goes to Washington: An Abridged Guide.”  It is an excellent summary of the Bilski case.  

Before he offers his guide to the case, Suarez writes, “For all of the opinions, articles, and conjecture, all one need do is study the law and look at the precedents to know that anticipating how the Supreme Court will rule in a case is akin to trying to gaze into a crystal ball. So, what will be the future of business methods as patent-eligible subject matter? Will the machine-or-transformation test stand? What will be the fate of the Bilski patent? An educated guess is the best that one can hope for in this situation.” 

Well said Suarez!! (more…)