• Bilski v. Kappos: U.S. Supreme Court Provides Some Guidance on Patent Eligibility, But No Bright-Line Rule
  • July 15, 2010 | Authors: Daniel A. DeVito; Edward V. Filardi; David W. Hansen; Douglas R. Nemec
  • Law Firms: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP - New York Office ; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP - Palo Alto Office ; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP - New York Office
  • Since the Federal Circuit articulated its “useful, concrete and tangible result” test in State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Group, 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998), the issue of whether business methods are eligible for protection as patentable “processes” under 35 U.S.C. Section 101 has been vigorously debated and litigated. The case of Bilski et al. v. Kappos presented the U.S. Supreme Court with an opportunity to make clear how the Patent and Trademark Office and courts should determine patent-eligible processes. On June 28, 2010, the Court issued its decision in Bilski, finding that the petitioners’ claimed inventions — methods of hedging risk in commodities trading in the energy market — were not patent-eligible processes under Section 101. See Bilski et al. v. Kappos, 561 U.S., 2010 WL 2555192 (Jun. 28, 2010).