Worldwide: Bilski – Patentability of Business Methods in the US

Last Updated: 29 June 2010
Article by Jonathan Lucas

The US Supreme Court has issued its decision on the long-awaited Bilski case, confirming the broad range of patentable subject matter in the US.

After one of the longest waits in the history of US Supreme Court patent cases, the appeal decision was finally issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Bilski v. Kappos on 28 June 2010. The decision considers the patenting of method claims in the US, particularly relating to business methods.

The Supreme Court has confirmed that lower courts were correct in holding the Bilski application to be non-patentable subject matter. However, it applied precedent from earlier decisions to conclude that the application was not patentable because it related to an abstract idea rather than using the "machine-or-transformation" test of the Federal Circuit.

Although the decision is only binding for patent applications in the US, the conclusions drawn are important for companies across the globe, particularly those that regularly file patent applications containing method claims in the US.

Background – The Application

In 1997, Bernard L. Bilski and Rand Warsaw filed a patent application for a method of hedging risks in commodities trading. The application describes providing a fixed bill energy contract to consumers such that consumers pay a fixed monthly fee in advance of the winter period based on their past energy use and irrespective of how much energy they subsequently use. Consumers can save money relative to others if a winter is particularly cold and a large amount of energy is used.

The Bilski "invention" lies in a three-step method for a broker to hedge risks for consumers of a commodity. The three essential steps of the method are:

  • initiating a series of transactions between a broker and consumers in which the consumers buy a commodity at a fixed rate based on past prices;
  • identifying sellers of the commodity having a risk position with regard to the commodity contrary to that of the consumers; and
  • initiating transactions between the broker and sellers at a fixed rate so that the risks of the consumers and sellers balance.

This is an example of what is known as a "business method" patent application. The extent to which business methods are patentable varies around the world. In some countries a method must be associated with some kind of physical technology to be patentable. In others, it is sufficient that the process leads to some commercial advantage. The situation in New Zealand and Australia is summarised further below.

Progress of the Application

The United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected Bilski's patent application on the ground that the invention is an abstract idea. Because the method was not implemented on an apparatus (for example a computer) and it was not limited to a practical application, it was held to be non-patentable subject matter in the US.

The USPTO's rejection was appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals, which agreed with the rejection but on the basis that patentable subject matter must involve the transformation of physical subject matter from one state to another. Since this was not the case with Bilski's invention, the appeal was rejected.

The applicants further appealed the rejection to the Federal Circuit which, in the en banc decision In re Bilski, confirmed that the invention did not relate to patentable subject matter because it failed the "machine-or-transformation" test for judging the patentability of a claimed process in the US. This is discussed further below.

Despite the continued rejections, the applicants appealed the Federal Circuit decision and the case was heard by the US Supreme Court in November 2009. On 28 June 2010, the Supreme Court decision issued.

The Federal Circuit's Machine-or-Transformation Test

In the Federal Circuit decision In re Bilski, the machine-or-transformation test was formulated to determine the patentability of a claimed process in the US. This test says that a method or process is patentable subject matter if:

  1. it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus; or
  2. it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing.

The Federal Circuit used this test instead of an earlier test in State Street Bank and Trust Company v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. that a patentable process must be useful, concrete and produce a tangible result because the Federal Circuit judges thought the State Street requirements were insufficient to determine patentability.

The Bilski application failed the first part of this new machine-or-transformation test because the claims were not tied to a particular machine or apparatus. This part of the test rules out a process where every step could be performed in the human mind.

The second part of the machine-or-transformation test concerns the transformation of an article into a different state or thing. Whereas many patented processes concern the transformation of physical objects or chemical compositions, the transformation of more abstract entities such as data and electronic signals is more debatable subject matter for patentability.

In applying the machine-or-transformation test to the Bilski application, the Federal Circuit decided that the claims related to the exchange of legal rights to purchase a commodity so there is no transformation of any physical object or substance. Similarly, because the method was not linked to a computer there was no transformation of an electronic signal representative of a physical object or substance.

Since the claims of the Bilski patent application failed both parts of the machine-or-transformation test, the appeal was rejected and the refusal of the application was upheld

The Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court confirmed that the Bilski application is not allowable because it relates to non-patentable subject matter. However, instead of applying the Federal Circuit's machine-or-transformation test, the Supreme Court reasoned that Bilski's risk-management method could be rejected with reference to earlier cases dealing with the unpatentability of abstract ideas.

Despite refusing Bilski's application, the Supreme Court did confirm that business methods in general remain patentable in the US. Furthermore, by not approving the applicability of the machine-or-transformation test to define a process the court has confirmed a wide range of other inventions remain eligible for patent protection in the US. However, the court did state that, while the machine-or-transformation test cannot exclusively determine whether a claimed process is patentable, it remains a useful tool.

Also of note is the fact that the court refused to rule on the patentability of software, which some commentators were anticipating. As such, it seems software remains patentable in the US.

Consequences of the Decision

The full impact of the Bilski decision may not be truly understood for some time, but it seems unlikely to be the earth-shattering decision that some people may have been anticipating. By upholding the original reasoning of the USPTO (that the Bilski application is not patentable because it claims an abstract idea) the status quo has been maintained; business methods are generally patentable in the US and abstract ideas are not.

Tests such as the machine-or-transformation test are often favoured by patent professionals as they tend to provide clear guidance as to how a court may determine a particular decision. In the light of Bilski, the machine-or-transformation test remains useful for assessing when a process is likely to be patentable (if a claimed invention passes the test), but cannot be used to definitively determine when a process is not patentable (if a claimed invention fails the test).

The machine-or-transformation test will therefore continue to be applied as a useful yardstick to assess patentability. But some questions in applying this test remain, because they did not need to be considered by either the Federal Circuit or the Supreme Court in relation to the Bilski case. For example, what constitutes a "particular machine or apparatus" for the purposes of the machine-or-transformation test? Does it include a general purpose computer? The USPTO Board of Patent Appeals in Ex parte Langemeyr and Ex parte Wasynczuk, which decided that a general purpose computer is not a particular machine. But it is unclear whether that remains the case following the Supreme Court's decision in Bilski.

Another question is whether data or electronic signals are "articles" for the purposes of the machine-or-transformation test. In its Bilski opinion, the Federal Circuit stated that the gathering of data would not constitute a transformation of any article, but went on to approve an earlier court's decision that a claim to the transformation of data representing physical objects into visual images on a display was patentable. The Supreme Court did not provide any clarification on this question.

The Bilski decision should be well received by New Zealand companies who seek patent protection for processes in the US. Business methods remain protectable, provided they are not solely abstract ideas.

The Situation in New Zealand and Australia

Finally, we briefly consider the situation in New Zealand and Australia in comparison. In both these countries, an invention must be a "manner of manufacture" for it to be eligible for patent protection. Over the years, case law has moulded the boundaries of this term to clarify its meaning.

Mere schemes or plans that do not involve some sort of interaction with a real entity are excluded, in the same way that abstract ideas are excluded in the US. However, to be patentable in New Zealand and Australia a business method must also produce a commercially useful effect and an artificially created state of affairs.

As a result, the set of claims that Bilski was attempting to patent in the US would also have been refused protection in New Zealand and Australia.

Computer software is currently patentable in New Zealand and Australia, as it is in the US. This issue is currently the subject of some debate, particularly in New Zealand where it is proposed to exclude computer software (other than embedded software) from patentable subject matter under the new Patents Bill (which is likely to come into force in late 2012). The fact that computer software remains patentable in light of Bilski is likely to add weight to the pro-software patentability side of the argument.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

James and Wells is the 2009 New Zealand Law Awards winner of the Intellectual Property Law Award for excellence in client service.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions