AwakenIP Awake Again

“In disapproving an exclusive machine-or-transformation test, we by no means foreclose the Federal Circuit’s development of other limiting criteria that further the purposes of the Patent Act and are not inconsistent with its text.” This concluding statement by the Supreme Court in Bilski unfortunately foreshadowed a maze of recent cases that make it difficult to know when software and medical methods are patentable.

What guidance do you see from the most recent cases?

1 comment to AwakenIP Awake Again

  • Akk

    I don’t see how the Free Software Foundation could possibly have couclnded that the Bilski decision constitutes a step toward ending software patents. … Of course, reading the majority opinion is a bit like reading tea leaves — it’s so vague that you can interpret it in many ways. However, from the decision I don’t think the Court would necessarily “sift” software and business method patentability within a single case. The decision wasn’t about business methods so much as it was about the invalidity of patents on abstract ideas. Therefore, in a case that involved both business methods and software, I would expect the Court to focus primarily on whether or not the “invention” was an abstract idea. The Court also does not seem inclined to decide issues other than those that are immediately before it, so I wouldn’t expect them to issue any sweeping pronouncements that would affect numerous different cases or industries. What they decide will likely be limited to the facts of each particular case.