Supreme Court Rules That Bilski’s Business Method Is Only An Abstract Idea

Article by Thomas J. Engellenner , Reza Mollaaghababa, Ph.D. and David J. Powsner

Originally published June 29, 2010

The long-awaited Supreme Court decision on "business method" patents in the case of Bilski v. Kappos was handed down yesterday and, in a rare instance of unanimity, the justices agreed that Bilski's method of hedging risks in commodity trading was not eligible for patent protection. The Court took the simplest approach, relying on long-standing precedent that one cannot patent an abstract idea to conclude that Bilski's method of hedging commodity trades was not a patent-eligible process but, rather, just an ineligible abstract idea.

Although it affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court rejected the lower court's rationale. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy said that the so-called machine-or-transformation standard adopted by the Federal Circuit as a litmus test of patent eligibility violated principles of statutory interpretation and posed a risk of obscuring the larger objectives of the patent system.  Under that test, a method is deemed eligible for patenting only if it is tied to a specific machine implementation or it transforms an article from one state to another. "The machine-or-transformation test may well provide a sufficient basis for evaluating processes," said Kennedy, but "should not be the sole criterion for determining the patentability of inventions in the Information Age." Justice Kennedy did not specify any other criterion per se, but he suggested that it ought to be in line with the Supreme Court precedent against patenting abstract ideas and that it be less extreme than the machine-or-transformation standard.

With regard to business methods, Kennedy suggested that "... the Patent Act leaves open the possibility that there are at least some processes that can be fairly described as business methods that are within patentable subject matter...." It is on this point that the Court lacked unanimity. In a separate opinion, Justice Stevens traced the history of patent law from early English common law and American jurisprudence to the last comprehensive revision of the U.S. Patent laws in 1952. Stevens concluded that Congress never intended to make any methods of doing business patentable. According to him, "[t]he breadth of business methods, their omnipresence in our society, and their potential vagueness also invite a particularly pernicious use of patents that we have long criticized." Justices Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Breyer were in agreement with Stevens.

Writing separately, Justice Breyer counseled the lower courts not to infer from yesterday's opinion any support for the Federal Circuit's still-prior test of patent eligibility. In the State Street Bank case, the Federal Circuit had ruled that any method which produced a "useful, concrete and tangible result" was patentable. That was the prevailing standard until it was repudiated by the same court in Bilski, in 2008. Breyer saw little value in readopting that standard, ridiculing the prior test as having led to granting of patents that ranged from the "somewhat ridiculous to the truly absurd."

Yesterday's decision by the Supreme Court leaves many questions unanswered. Following its time-honored traditions, the Court chose to avoid far-reaching pronouncements and let the law of patent-eligible subject matter evolve in due course. Those who seek business method patents in the future, however, will need to be wary since Justice Stevens and the other three Justices who joined in his concurring opinion are clearly of the opinion that business method patents are not authorized by U.S. Patent laws.

In the short term, applicants seeking business method patents will need to draft their claims in a way that avoids their rejection as merely "abstract" ideas. While the Supreme Court has now held that the machine-or-transformation test is not the exclusive test for patent eligibility, applicants who meet this test may well continue to have a safe harbor.

www.nutter.com

This update is for information purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. Under the rules of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, this material may be considered as advertising.