On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court decided the Bilski decision. Here is a pdf version: .Bilski A commentary is being prepared. A brief preliminary summary:
On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court decided the Bilski decision. Here is a pdf version: .Bilski A commentary is being prepared. A brief preliminary summary:
Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, CPLRG 0015 (2010) (KENNEDY, Roberts, Thomas, Alito & Scalia (except for Parts II-B-2 and II-C-2), STEVENS, Ginsburg, Breyer & Sotomayor, concurring; BREYER & Scalia (as to Part II), concurring)
MAJOR ISSUES: Business method patents; “process” in Section 101; exceptions for abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature Read CPLRG™ 0015
Patent Rights Protection Group, LLC v. Video Gaming Technologies, Inc., 603 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (LINN, Rader & Archer) PatentRightsProtectionGroup05122010
Major Issues: personal jurisdiction; trade show attendance; reasonableness of exercise of jurisdiction; suits against multiple accused infringers; jurisdictional discovery; 2011 Supreme Court decisions, J. McIntyre, Goodyear Read CPLRG™ 0075
Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 603 F.3d 1377, CPLRG 0065 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (NEWMAN, Rader & Linn) OrthoLupin05102010
MAJOR ISSUES: patent term extension for drugs, Hatch-Waxman Act; first commercial marketing of “drug product”; active ingredient of drug product; enantiomer distinct from racemate Read CPLRG™ 0065
Essay on Bilski: Patent Claim Scope
October 22nd, 2010
What does Bilski portend for the future of patent law? What was the real concern of the Justices in Bilski? Was it with the undue breadth of the claims in question, claims that the Justices intuitively felt went beyond a “new and useful” contribution? Does the majority holding Bilski suggest a shift away from the formalistic Section 101 categories of patent eligible subject matter, such as the definition of “process” and the judicial exceptions for “abstract ideas,” and toward the traditional fact-based regulators of patent claim scope, such as enablement, novelty and unobviousness?
Chisum explores these questions in a work in progress: “Weeds and Seeds in the Supreme Court’s Business Method Patents Decision: New Directions for Regulating Patent Scope.” Essay on Bilski
Posted in Articles, Bilski Watch |