Premier Destination for Sophisticated Buyers of Legal Services
Home > Legal Library > Article




Join Matindale-Hubbell Connected


US Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Bilski



by Dan Himmelfarb View Biography
Andrew J. Pincus View Biography
Mayer Brown LLP View Firm Credentials
Washington Office

June 23, 2009

Previously published on June 2, 2009

Under Section 101 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 101, an “idea” is not patentable, but a “process” may be.  On June 1, 2009, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Bilski v. Doll, No. 08-964, to decide when a “process” is patent-eligible.

Bilski has already generated considerable interest in the business community—nearly 40 amicus briefs were filed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit when it considered the case en banc.  Although the patent-in-suit is narrow, the Supreme Court’s resolution of the case could affect the patentability of business methods, computer software, and financial instruments.

The invention at issue in Bilski is a method for hedging risk in commodity prices.  The patent application seeks protection for a method of purchasing commodities with a certain risk position, identifying market participants with the opposite risk position, and initiating a series of transactions to balance the positions.  The patent examiner denied the application, finding that the invention was not directed at the “technological arts,” because it merely solved a mathematical problem.  The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirmed, but on a different ground.  Rejecting the examiner’s “technological arts” test, the Board denied a patent because the invention does not contemplate the transformation of physical subject matter from one state to another.  The applicants appealed to the Federal Circuit, which decided to give the case initial en banc consideration and solicit the views of amici.  That court held that a “process” is patentable only if it is “tied to a particular machine or apparatus” or “transforms a particular article into a different state or thing.”  545 F.3d 943, 954 (Fed. Cir. 2008).  Applying that standard, the court found that Bilski’s invention was ineligible for patent protection.

Absent extensions, which are likely, amicus briefs in support of the petitioners (or of neither party)  will be due on July 23, 2009, and amicus briefs in support of the respondent will be due on August 24, 2009.



 

The views expressed in this document are solely the views of the author and not Martindale-Hubbell. This document is intended for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance.


 

Practice Area Resource Centers
Visit our Practice Area Resource Centers to view practice area specific content compiled from a variety of legal sources. Find related articles, podcasts, industry leader insights and much more. We currently offer the following Practice Areas: Litigation; Intellectual Property; Real Estate; Corporate Law; Criminal Law; Bankruptcy; Immigration; Business Law; Insurance; Taxation; Labor & Employment; Commercial Law; Medical Malpractice; Trusts & Estates; Securities; International Law ; Health Care; Environmental Law; Construction Law; Workers' Compensation





Total Practice Solutions

 

Terms & Conditions | Privacy | Copyright 2009 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.