UsA
In its en banc decision, the Federal Circuit upheld the rejection of the Bilski Depending upon the scope and nature of the Supreme Court’s ultimate ruling
and Warsaw patent application claims, by promulgating a new and exclusive in Bilski, the health and well-being of many US and foreign companies doing
‘machine or transformation’ test for method claims to be patentable. Under business in the US may be signifi cantly aff ected. From the nature of the
this test, the Federal Circuit required a patent business method claim to questions fi red at counsel from the bench during oral argument, it appears to
either be tied to a machine or to be directed to the transformation of a some observers that a number of the nine sitting Supreme Court Justices may
particular article into a diff erent state or thing. Bilski and Warsaw sought to
be sceptical or even hostile to a very broad view of patent eligibility when it
have this adverse Federal Circuit decision heard and hopefully overturned
comes to non-tangible business processes or methods. Examples of attempts
by petitioning the US Supreme Court for writ of certiorari.
by Justices to illustrate unacceptable extremes of business method patent
coverage include: methods of teaching antitrust law (Justice Breyer); speed
Th e US Supreme Court is not in most cases required to accept and hear
dating (Justice Sotomayor, who is new to the court), estate planning and tax
appeals from lower courts. In fact, very few appeals involving patent cases
avoidance techniques (Justice Ginsburg); and the development of classic types
are accepted by the Supreme Court. However, in view of the importance
of actuarial tables (Justice Kennedy). Justice Ginsburg observed that foreign
of the issues in Bilski and the literally dozens of amicus curiae (friend of
countries do not grant business method patents. Justice Scalia was quoted
the court) briefs fi led by companies from diverse industries that were not
by Reuters in a KSR 2006 patent case, referring to the discussion of issues
parties to the Bilski litigation, a long-awaited patent law showdown is near
involving “obviousness” under US patent laws as “gobbledygook”. During the
by virtue of the Supreme Court’s granting of certiorari.
oral arguments in Bilski, Justice Scalia eased tensions somewhat and drew
laughter when he suggested that there must have been a “horse whisperer”
Examples of those among the wide array of companies and parties whose
at some point in time who would have liked a patent. Counsel for Bilski and
counsel fi led amicus briefs are: Accenture and Pitney Bowes; American Bar
Warsaw, during rebuttal argument, attempted to persuade the court that US
Association; American Insurance Association, Hartford Financial Services,
Congress knew about business method patents and chose not to prohibit them,
Jackson National Life Insurance Company, Pacifi c Life Insurance Company,
but rather chose to create a statutory prior user defence to infringement.
Sun Life Assurance Company and Transamerica Life Insurance Company;
Adams Pharmaceutical; Armanta, Asentinel, Cybersource, and Hooked It was Justice Breyer who observed the need to create “a balance” between
Wireless; Austin Intellectual Property Law Association; AwakenIP; BIO; and among “four things in patent law that everyone accepts”. Th ese include
AdvaMed, Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation and the University of the competing aspects of “increased innovation and disclosure” on one hand
California; Bank of America Corp.; Bloomberg; Business Soft ware Alliance; and “higher prices and having to get permission [that] can really slow things
Borland Soft ware; Boston Patent Law Association; Caris Diagnostics; down and destroy advance” on the other.
Chakrabarty; Chicago IP Law Association; Conejo Valley Bar Association;
Pharmaceutical companies face fi erce competition and increasing challenges
Dolby Labs; Double Rock and other IP entities; Dr Timothy F. McDounough;
to their business, given the current worldwide economic downturn and the
Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund; Electronic Frontier
focus upon reducing healthcare costs. Patents covering a number of their
Foundation, and Entrepreneurial and Computer Advocates; Sarnoff et al.
blockbuster drugs have expired or will do so in the near future. Raising the
and AARP; Federation International des Conseils en Propriete; Franklin
bar to their ability to obtain patents covering life science advances presents
Pierce Law Center; Georgia Biomedical Partnership; Houston IEEE-
an obstacle, given the high costs associated with research and bringing a
USA; Intellectual Property Law Association; IBM; Intellectual Property
drug to market.
Owners; Intellectual Property Section of the Nevada State Bar; Internet
retailers Crutchfi eld, Newegg, L.L. Bean, Overstock.com, J.C. Penney,
Companies whose amicus briefs appear to be in favour of business method
Talbots and Hasbro; law professors Lemley et al.; Medtronic; Monogram
patents that contemplate protection for computer soft ware include IBM,
BioSciences and Genomic Health; Raymond C. Meiers; Microsoft ; Novartis;
Microsoft , Philips and Symantec. Th ose whose amicus briefs appear to
Philips Electronics; PhRMA; Red Hat; Regulatory Data Corp.; Rockwell
oppose such soft ware patents include Google, Free Soft ware Foundation,
Automation; Sachs & Brownstone; State of Oregon; Telecommunication Foundation For A Free Information Infrastructure, Soft ware Freedom Law
Systems; Symantec Corp.; Teles AG; Time Systems; University of South Center and Red Hat. Th e latter group includes those who are committed to
Florida; Washington State Patent Law Association; William Mitchell College open source programs. A number of companies wish to outright exclude
of Law Intellectual Property Institute; and Yahoo. soft ware per se from patentability.
www.worldipreview.com World Intellectual Property Review Digest 2009 163
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173