On June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Bilski v. Kappos,1 addressing the circumstances by which business methods are eligible for patent protection. In a majority opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court, not surprisingly, affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision that a process for hedging against the risk of price changes in commodities markets is unpatentable.

The majority understandably relied on the text of the Patent Act and the Court’s own precedent to reject the Federal Circuit’s holding that a process is only patentable if “(1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing” (the “machine-or-transformation test”).2 Instead of creating new exclusions and/or categorical rules, the Court ruled that the patent eligibility focus should be on the three long-recognized judicial exceptions to patentability: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. Ultimately, the Court found that Mr. Bilski’s claims were directed to an abstract idea, and therefore not patentable.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]