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“?
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.