Appellate.net

 
home
about the group
appellate attorneys
briefs
docket reports
articles & treatises
oral arguments
news
appellate courts
search
contact
 
2 June 2009

US Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Bilski

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. 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.

Learn more about our Intellectual Property and Supreme Court & Appellate practices.


[ Go Back ]

 
 
© 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.