BREAKING NOW: U.S. Supreme Court Issues Narrow Patent Decision
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in Bilski v. Kappos that the business method central to the case cannot be patented -- but the narrow decision did not address the wider issue of whether other abstract ideas can be patented.
The litigation centers on efforts by inventors Bernie Bilski and Rand Warsaw, beginning in 1997, to patent a method for businesses to better manage their energy bills by factoring in weather-related price fluctuations. When the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected their request, they took the case to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which upheld the USPTO.
Concluding that only the so-called "machine-or-transformation test" should be used to determine the patent eligibility of a "process," the court said it applied the test and determined that the petitioners' claimed invention "was not patentable." Nevertheless, it emphasized that "there are reasons to doubt whether the test should be the sole criterion for determining the patentability of inventions in the Information Age."
The court further noted that today's decision is not a commentary on the "the patentability" of any particular invention. "The patent law faces a great challenge in striking the balance between protecting inventors and not granting monopolies over procedures that others would discover," it added.
"Today's decision preserves a delicate but important balance. It keeps the door closed to patenting mere abstract ideas, which many 'business method' patent applications have been," said Scott Bain, an attorney with the Software & Information Industry Association, in a statement. "But just as importantly, it affirms the continued viability of patenting useful software applications."
To read today's decision, click here
See CongressDaily's coverage (subscription required) of last November's oral arguments here
Join the Discussion
The National Journal Group has the right (but not the obligation) to monitor the comments and to remove any materials it deems inappropriate.
Comments powered by Disqus