ipwars.com

Patently-O has extracts from and links to transcripts of the oral argument before the US Supreme Court and some informed reportage.

Also, make sure you read Prof. John Duffy’s rebuttal of the charge that the Federal Circuit’s decision in State Street “opening the floodgates” to business method patents is a case of judicial activisim gone wild.

Then ask yourself, would the world really be a better place if we all adopted the European practice of banning the patenting of  business methods and computer programs “as such“?

• RT @pofip: ACCC warns about questionable trade mark renewals http://bit.ly/4l8aO1 Our list is here:http://bit.ly/hnznh
• @nipper: Podcast debate on SCOTUS granting cert in Bilski (patent) case: http://bit.ly/1c4oaw
• wrothnie ACIP interim report on post grant patent enforcement strategies. Comments by 20 Sep 2009. 4 copy contact Jackie Carroll http://bit.ly/IoZcZ
• RT @TrademarkBlog: Link to text of Superman Decision: Creator’s Heirs Win Rights to Early Storieshttp://bit.ly/fTO00
• wrothnie Seminar: 27 August 2009: Copyright Responsibility on the Internet – in Three Acts — Copyright Society of Australia http://ff.im/-6VzLD
• wrothnie IPKat – news and fun for everyone!: Global IP law: two recent publications http://ff.im/-6UKjl
• RT @joshgans: Build a higher paywall for newspapers. Excellent article. Wrong but excellent.http://bit.ly/12kG13
• DCCA Opinion No. 07-CV-159: Solers, Inc. v. John Doe – subpoena to identify poster http://ff.im/-6VSN5
• RT @ipgossip: Francis Gurry, Dir. Gen. of WIPO is Australian, a good listener & does yoga daily. Read more about him: http://bit.ly/HICsX
• RT @LexMonitor: RT @ALI__ABA: Who Represents America’s Biggest Companies … and How http://bit.ly/vtBNh

Bilski et al. have filed their written brief in their appeal to the US Supreme Court over the Federal Circuit’s disallowance of their “business method patent” – a method for managing risk when buying or selling energy commodities.

Patently-O has a guest blog analysing the submission and quite a range of comments.

The US Supreme Court granted certiorari overnight. So, we’ll eventually get to find out about the patentability of business methods in the US.

Patently-O reports the questions are:

Whether the Federal Circuit erred by holding that a “process” must be tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or transform a particular article into a different state or thing (“machine-or-transformation” test), to be eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101, despite this Court’s precedent declining to limit the broad statutory grant of patent eligibility for “any” new and useful process beyond excluding patents for “laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.”

Whether the Federal Circuit’s “machine-or-transformation” test for patent eligibility, which effectively forecloses meaningful patent protection to many business methods, contradicts the clear Congressional intent that patents protect “method[s] of doing or conducting business.” 35 U.S.C. § 273.

Scotusblog has links to the docket and the rounds of briefs here.

The comments on Patently-O anticipate the end of State Street and business methods in the USA.