Thursday, October 30, 2008

CAFC Decides Bilski, Rules In Favor Of the USPTO

Read all the opinions (9-3, 132 pages) here

HIGHLIGHTS:

** Freeman-Walter-Abele "inadequate" and "should no longer be relied on"

*** HOWEVER, "'useful, concrete and tangible result' inquiry is [also] inadequate." Noted the CAFC: "As a result, those portions of our opinions in State Street and AT&T relying solely on a 'useful, concrete and tangible result' analysis should no longer be relied on (emphasis added)."

**** CAFC reaffirms Benson approach : claims are patent eligible under 101 if (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) transforms a particular article into a different state or thing

State Street still good law, but methods must be implemented on a machine. Noted the court in footnote 18: "In State Street, as is often forgotten, we addressed a claim drawn not to a process but to a machine."

"PURE" BUSINESS METHODS IN JEOPARDY:

From p. 28 of the opinion:

Purported transformations or manipulations simply of public or private legal obligations or relationships, business risks, or other such abstractions cannot meet the test because they are not physical objects or substances, and they are not representative of physical objects or substances.
RETURN OF "TECHNOLOGICAL ARTS" TEST?

Heck no. The CAFC clearly rebuffed the PTO in this regard:


[W]hile we agree with the PTO that the machine-or-transformation test is the correct test to apply in determining whether a process claim is patent-eligible under § 101, we do not agree, as discussed earlier, that this amounts to a "technological arts" test . . . Neither the PTO nor the courts may pay short shrift to the machine-or-transformation test by using purported equivalents or shortcuts such as a "technological arts" requirement. Rather, the machine-or-transformation test is the only applicable test and must be applied. (p. 29)
UPDATE:

The PLI Blog is pronouncing "Federal Circuit Decides Software No Longer Patentable" - I disagree with this completely. The opinion clearly provides that if some machine exists and a well-defined data structure is manipulated, 101 will be satisfied. The large majority of software patents will be just fine.

Bloomberg is reporting that "In today's ruling, the appeals court overturned a 1998 decision involving State Street Corp. that made clear that business methods are entitled to patent protection." Again, this is not correct - the CAFC clearly stated that State Street remains good law (i.e., nothing was overturned).

I won't get into the preliminary reactions from the anti-software patent crowd, but they may want to read the opinion a little more closely before popping their champagne corks . . .

4 Comentários:

Tostien said...

I put my own analysis on my website at http://patentlawny.com/index.php/business-method-patents ... but in a nutshell, I don't think it changes much except for those patents on the fringe of abstractness that were already been rejected by the USPTO. It won't change my practice very much! Gene Quinn is overblowing this! They supported Diamond v. Dier!

book said...

"Again, no such thing happened - the CAFC clearly stated that State Street remains good law (i.e., nothing was overturned)."

I disagree, the decision clearly states the portions of the opinions in State Street that relied solely upon the "useful, concrete and tangible result" test should no longer be relied on.

JJL said...

They didn't "support" Diamond v. Diehr. That's a SCOTUS decision -- they have to abide by it whether they like it or not.

Anonymous said...

Wow, patent bloggers seem to have wildly different opinions on what Bilski means. Gene Quinn seems to be on one end, you are on the other, Dennis Crouch seems to be in the middle.

I guess one thing is certain: The Fed Circuit was supposed to finally provide certainty and closure to 101 issues, but they couldn't even get that right. It seems like what is statutory is even more uncertain now than before. Great job Federal Circuit!

DISCLAIMER

This Blog/Web Site ("Blog") is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. Use of the Blog does not create any attorney-client relationship between you and Peter Zura or his firm. Persons requiring legal advice should contact a licensed attorney in your state. Any comment posted on the Blog can be read by any Blog visitor; do not post confidential or sensitive information. Any links from another site to the Blog are beyond the control of Peter Zura and does not convey his, or his past or present employer(s) approval, support, endorsement or any relationship to any site or organization.

The 271 Patent Blog © 2008. Template by Dicas Blogger.

TOPO