Originally published June 1, 2009

Keywords: Supreme Court, Patent Law, Patentable Subject Matter, Bilski v. Doll, hedging risk, commodity prices, patent application,

Today the Supreme Court granted certiorari in one case of interest to the business community:

Patent Law—Patentable Subject Matter

Under Section 101 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 101, an "idea" is not patentable, but a "process" may be.  Today, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Bilski v. Doll, No. 08-964, to decide when a "process" is patent-eligible.

Bilski has already generated considerable interest in the business community—nearly 40 amicus briefs were filed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit when it considered the case en banc.  Although the patent-in-suit is narrow, the Supreme Court's resolution of the case could affect the patentability of business methods, computer software, and financial instruments.

The invention at issue in Bilski is a method for hedging risk in commodity prices.  The patent application seeks protection for a method of purchasing commodities with a certain risk position, identifying market participants with the opposite risk position, and initiating a series of transactions to balance the positions.  The patent examiner denied the application, finding that the invention was not directed at the "technological arts," because it merely solved a mathematical problem.  The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirmed, but on a different ground.  Rejecting the examiner's "technological arts" test, the Board denied a patent because the invention does not contemplate the transformation of physical subject matter from one state to another.  The applicants appealed to the Federal Circuit, which decided to give the case initial en banc consideration and solicit the views of amici.  That court held that a "process" is patentable only if it is "tied to a particular machine or apparatus" or "transforms a particular article into a different state or thing."  545 F.3d 943, 954 (Fed. Cir. 2008).  Applying that standard, the court found that Bilski's invention was ineligible for patent protection.

Absent extensions, which are likely, amicus briefs in support of the petitioners (or of neither party)  will be due on July 23, 2009, and amicus briefs in support of the respondent will be due on August 24, 2009.  

* * * * * *

Today, the Supreme Court also invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States in one other case of interest to the business community:

Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., No. 08-1191.  The case involves the circumstances under which the antifraud provisions of the United States securities laws apply to transnational conduct.

Please visit us at www.appellate.net.

Mayer Brown is a global legal services organization comprising legal practices that are separate entities ("Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP, a limited liability partnership established in the United States; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales; and JSM, a Hong Kong partnership, and its associated entities in Asia. The Mayer Brown Practices are known as Mayer Brown JSM in Asia.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.

Copyright 2009. Mayer Brown LLP, Mayer Brown International LLP, and/or JSM. All rights reserved.