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
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:
Read the rest of this entry »
Bilski v. Kappos -
Jun. 28, 2010
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
On November 9, 2009, the Supreme Court held oral argument on the Bilski case, which concerns the patentability of subject matter such as computer software and business methods.
Bilski Watch; Supreme Court on Business Method Patents