home
about the group
appellate attorneys
briefs
docket reports
oral arguments
news
contact
 

SUPREME COURT DOCKET REPORT

Mayer Brown's Supreme Court and Appellate Practice Group distributes a Docket Report whenever the Supreme Court grants certiorari in a case of interest to the business community. We also email the Docket Report to our subscribed members and if you don't already subscribe to the Docket Report and would like to, please click here.

October Term 2008 - June 1, 2009

Today the Supreme Court granted certiorari in one case of interest to the business community:


Patent Law—Patentable Subject Matter

Under Section 101 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 101, an “idea” is not patentable, but a “process” may be.  Today, 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.  Any questions about this case should be directed to Dan Himmelfarb (+1 202 263 3035) or Andrew J. Pincus (+1 202 263 3220) in our Washington, DC office.


Today, the Supreme Court also invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States in one other case of interest to the business community:

Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., No. 08-1191.  The case involves the circumstances under which the antifraud provisions of the United States securities laws apply to transnational conduct.


Mayer Brown's Supreme Court & Appellate practice distributes a Docket Report whenever the Supreme Court grants certiorari in a case of interest to the business community and distributes a Docket Report-Decision Alert whenever the Court decides such a case. We hope you find the Docket Reports and Decision Alerts useful, and welcome feedback on them (which should be addressed to Andrew Tauber, their general editor, at atauber@mayerbrown.com or +1 202 263 3324).
Feel free to forward this message to anyone who you believe might be interested in the Docket Report.

Please visit us at appellate.net


Mayer Brown Supreme Court Docket Reports provide information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest to our clients and friends. They are not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and are not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed.

 
 
© 2014. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved. --  Legal Notices | Attorney Advertising

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the “Mayer Brown Practices”). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. “Mayer Brown” and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.