martindale.com
Legal Library
|
Ten Reasons the Supreme Court Should Take In re Bilski by Erika Harmon Arner
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P. - Reston Office
|
|
June 25, 2009
Previously published by Patently-O Blog on April 1, 2009
The Time Has Come - Nearly thirty years have passed since the Supreme Court addressed patentable subject matter. The "BFD" cases-Gottschalk v. Benson (1972), Parker v. Flook (1978), and Diamond v. Diehr (1981)-represent modern doctrine on the scope of patentable processes under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Yet these cases were handed down before the Internet and personal computer fundamentally changed the way Americans live, work, and innovate. In their struggle to apply the BFD cases to cutting-edge inventions, the PTO and courts have whittled away at the scope of section 101. The time has come for the Court to reaffirm that the broad, flexible approach to section 101 set forth in the BFD cases applies with equal force in today's information age.
|
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. |
| | View More Library Documents By... | | | | Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P. | | | | Reston Office |
| |
| | | | Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P. Overview |
Practice Area Resource Centers
|
|