Patent Protection for Business Methods left in Murky Waters after Supreme Court’s June Decision
- Author Phillip Vales
- Published September 12, 2010
- Word count 872
The nation’s top court has issued its long anticipated opinion rejecting the patentability of
the controversial Bilski case. The decision is both surprising for what it does and for
what it does not do. The Justices did not offer a clear interpretation as to what constitutes
patentable subject matter in the narrow classification known as ‘business methods.’ But
they did clarify certain points of the lower court’s ruling. Inventors and businesses
seeking patent coverage are well advised to study the oracles emanating from the
Supreme Court in order to get a patent that can pass muster in the existing case law.
The field of ‘business method’ patents includes a variety of transactions having to do
with commerce, banking, taxation, electronic transaction processing and more. Patents
have been granted in this field for at least two centuries before the present case even saw
the light of day. However, the policy of the government agency overseeing patents, the
United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), has evolved from those earlier grants
to one that assumed that patents could not be granted for these very same methods.
Since the advent of the web, a rainstorm of patents claiming financial transaction
processing began to arrive at the doors of the USPTO forcing a change in direction. The
patent office was compelled by the deluge to examine numerous cases having both a
technological application as well as crossing the line into financial processes that it would
have preferred not to. As a matter of daily practice, the office simply instructed
examiners not to evaluate a patent application to determine if it could be a business
method or not. This would change when the Federal Circuit Court decided the landmark
State Street Bank decision (1998).
This decision swung open the gates of what could be patented generating a chorus of
complaints against State Street even though many informed observers point out that it
may not have been entirely responsible after all. In any case, the Federal Circuit did
indeed indicate that an invention would be eligible for a patent if it involved some
practical application and produced a useful, concrete and tangible result. The US Patent
Office responded by making it part of their official policy to require a technological
connection for the method to be patentable. In doing so, the agency overstepped the
bounds of its constitutional mandate since it could not be proved that these requirements
existed in the current body of law (Ex Parte Lundgren, BPAI 2005).
In the year 2008 business methods hit a brick wall with the Federal Circuit’s Bilski
decision wherein business methods were rendered patentable only if they passed certain
tests. In particular, the Federal Circuit indicated that processes transforming an item
from one thing into another are patentable and that those processes not having a
transformative step may be granted a patent if attached to a machine. This nebulous twoprong
test left many patent attorneys scratching their heads since what items could be
considered transformable was left clouded in mystery. The transformation of minerals
with the application of mercury into silver dust was clearly a patentable item but how
about the manipulation of financial information in a computer register through a complex
financial algorithm? Could this be considered an item under transformation?
Additionally, what constituted a machine that could render non-transformative processes
into patentable processes? Nor was there an answer to the most basic question of
whether or not the machine itself had to be unobvious or would the blending of the
machine with the non-transformative process be sufficient to permit patentability?
All of these questions were in play when the highest court prepared to decide Bilski. To
some observers its recent decision to reject the patentability for a method of hedging risks
because it represented an abstract concept left many unanswered questions. In doing so it
modified the Federal Circuit’s opinion in a variety of ways. In particular and most
importantly, the Supreme Justices ensured that the lower court’s test involving a machine
or transformation was utilized only as a test of patentability, not as a general rule for
denying protection. Inventions that do not pass this test may still be patentable under the
new decision; as a consequence, inventors having an idea that neither is attached to a
machine nor transforms an item still might be eligible for a patent grant.
Adding to the confusion were four Justices who indicated that they believed that
historically speaking, business methods were not favored with a patent and that the
practice of not patenting them should continue. Another four of the Justices contradicted
the first set by stating that the opposite was true; that indeed certain methods of doing
business could be granted patent protection. However, in indicating this they did not
provide a coherent methodology of how to determine this nor did they offer examples to
guide the community. Absent legislation or further guidance from lower courts the
system will muddle on in the penumbra of abstractions so typical of legal rulings.
The US patent system is presently choking with an enormous backlog of cases many of
which are directed to this very same subject matter. When guidance will come from the
legislature or lower courts only Heaven knows.
Phillip Vales is an engineer and patent agent. To contact the author visit: patent attorney or patent
Article source: https://articlebiz.comRate article
Article comments
There are no posted comments.
Related articles
- Key factors why eBay sales could drop
- How EasyPDF™ Forms Save Time & Money at Home and in the Workplace
- Regardless of What You Believe or Have Been Told, Desktop/Laptop Computers Are Not Going the Way of the Dinosaur
- The One and Only 15-Second Digital Lien Waiver to Complete and Submit in Record Time Using the Free Adobe Reader
- Augmented Reality (AR) in Business: Why Your Company Needs It
- What is a Chauffeur Service? Unwind and Arrive in Style (www.chauffeur.my)
- Tuozhen: Your Go-To Custom Hoodie Manufacturer
- What can tourists do in the Caribbean?
- The Unseen Impacts of Financial Noncompliance on Business Growth
- Top 10 Reasons to Use Business Central’s License Plating App
- Exploring BCShows: A Comprehensive B2B Industry Platform
- A Luxury African Safari Or A Caribbean Beach Holiday
- What might be able to be done for osteoarthritis in the future?
- App Development: Transforming Ideas into Reality
- Why is the study of history is critical?
- Navigating Europe with Confidence: Logistics Solutions from Barcelona and Cluj-Napoca
- Taking a Well-Deserved Break: An Introduction to London Respite Care
- Discover the Convenience of Chauffeur Services in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
- Fall Holiday Fashion Trends: The Kaftan and Kimono Dress Revival
- Vintage Bohemian Charm: Creating a Home Office Retreat
- Embrace the Maximalist Decor : Unleash Your Boldest Dreams
- The Impact of 3D Animation in Business: Enhancing Visual Communication and Marketing Strategies
- Check Out These 6 Tips For A Great Day Hike!
- Steady Slope Marketing: Launching Your Small Business with Google My Business and Digital Marketing
- Steady Slope Marketing: Boost Your Business with Targeted Facebook Ads
- Steady Slope Marketing: Building Strong Brands for Lasting Success
- Steady Slope Marketing: Maximizing Growth with Google Ads
- Steady Slope Marketing: Building Custom Websites that Drive Growth
- Steady Slope Marketing: Unlocking Growth with Google Local Service Ads
- Steady Slope Marketing: Scaling Your Business for Long-Term Growth