12
Bilski Business Method Patent-Eligibility
View Comments | Posted by Bob Brill --- bob_brill@hotmail.com in business method patent, financial engineering, financial services patent, patentable subject matter, proprietary software
During and after attendance this week at the TiE Midwest event on Growth Opportunities in Financial Technologies, Ron May asked me about the “patentable subject matter” case I mentioned in my question to the panel. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should decide In re Bilski within a few months. The case reviews a business method patent claim that had been rejected (2.7MB) by the patent office under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as ineligible for patent protection by being directed to nonstatutory subject matter. Bilski’s claimed invention involves hedging the consumption risks associated with a commodity sold at a fixed price.
On February 15, 2008 the Federal Circuit requested briefing of five issues. In a nutshell, the Federal Circuit is taking another look at its 1998 decision State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. which had said:
The repetitive use of the expansive term “any” in § 101 shows Congress’s intent not to place any restrictions on the subject matter for which a patent may be obtained beyond those specifically recited in § 101. Indeed, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that Congress intended § 101 to extend to “anything under the sun that is made by man.”
Oral argument took place on May 8, 2008; listen to MP3, at Caption enter “Bilski”. The case is high-profile.
Text Copyright © 2008 Bob Brill
View Comments for Bilski Business Method Patent-Eligibility
bobbrill | September 13, 2008 at 12:07 pm
bobbrill | September 13, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Update: The May Report has been published with my post above as I had submitted it.
bobbrill | September 13, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Just a friendly note: if we met at the event and you handwrote your email address on my registration papers, unfortunately I do not have the papers so please feel free to contact me and I apologize for missing your information. I look forward to hearing from you.
Bob Brill | September 13, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Apparently The May Report publication has been delayed, though the above post “Bilski Business Method Patent-Eligibility” http://bobbrill.net/?p=582 I hope is useful on its own merits as a status update on the Bilski case. Feel free to share suggestions whether such a post is better inserted as: 1) a short post without intended completeness such as for reasons underlying the substance of the post, which occurred from the request that led to the above post for helping both TMR and my blog; or 2) my own comment on a relevant standalone post like the additional detail in my comment paragraph summarizing the Jacobsen v. Katzer case atop my speech post “Open Source: IT, IP & Business” http://bobbrill.net/?p=74. BTW my recent switchover of commenting to DISQUS has been good so far.
Bob Brill | September 13, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Update: The May Report has been published with my post above as I had submitted it.
Bob Brill | September 13, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Just a friendly note: if we met at the event and you handwrote your email address on my registration papers, unfortunately I do not have the papers so please feel free to contact me and I apologize for missing your information. I look forward to hearing from you.
Entrepreneur Idol Class on IP and Your Ideas | Bob Brill patent IP lawyer with business sense | March 27, 2009 at 1:31 pm
[...] September, I posted a status update on Bilski Business Method Patent-Eligibility. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should decide In re Bilski within a few months. [...]
Apparently The May Report publication has been delayed, though the above post “Bilski Business Method Patent-Eligibility” http://bobbrill.net/?p=582 I hope is useful on its own merits as a status update on the Bilski case. Feel free to share suggestions whether such a post is better inserted as: 1) a short post without intended completeness such as for reasons underlying the substance of the post, which occurred from the request that led to the above post for helping both TMR and my blog; or 2) my own comment on a relevant standalone post like the additional detail in my comment paragraph summarizing the Jacobsen v. Katzer case atop my speech post “Open Source: IT, IP & Business” http://bobbrill.net/?p=74. BTW my recent switchover of commenting to DISQUS has been good so far.