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.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i0.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?w=1200)
The US Federal Circuit (9 panel bench) has handed down its decision ruling that Bilski’s method of hedging risks in commodities trading was not patentable.
As summarised by Patently-O, the majority opinion substantially retreats from State Street.
a process claim [must be] tailored narrowly enough to encompass only a particular application of a fundamental principle rather than to pre-empt the principle itself. A claimed process is surely patent-eligible under § 101 if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing.
Judge Newman would have found the invention patentable; Judge Rader would have rejected the patent, without the need to develop a new principle, on the grounds that all that was claimed was an abstract principle.
Read Patently-O’s summary, which also has a link to the decision itself. Compare our Full Federal Court in Grant.
Business method patenting? Read More »
