USPTO issues new section 101 guidelines for use until Supreme Court decides Bilski v. Doll

This week the USPTO has issued new guidelines to patent examiners on how to handle § 101 patentable subject matter issues in light of the Federal Circuit's ruling in In re Bilski. The guidelines are distilled into two flow charts and an instructional memo to examiners on how to conduct the analysis. Click below to […]

Continue Reading →

Supreme Court grants certiorari in Bilski

In an order today, the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal in Bilski v. Doll regarding the patentability of method claims. Back in October, the Federal Circuit decided In re Bilski, adopting the "machine-or-transformation" test as the exclusive test to determine whether a method is drawn to patentable subject matter. Bilski filed a petition […]

Continue Reading →

Marketing methods not patentable subject matter: no machine or transformation

In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit applied the machine-or-transformation test from Bilski to affirm the rejection of all pending claims in a patent application by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. The claims at issue related to methods of marketing products and "paradigms" for marketing software. The Board held all claims were not […]

Continue Reading →

Bilski: No machine or transformation, no patentable method, at least for now

As we reported Thursday, the Federal Circuit has decided In re Bilski, an en banc decision regarding the scope of patentable subject matter. Specifically, the court addressed what is necessary for a method to fall within the scope of patentable subject matter under § 101. The court, after examining the relevant Supreme Court cases on […]

Continue Reading →

Bilski decided

The decision is available here. It adopts the "machine-or-transformation" test for patentable subject matter. As stated by the majority: The machine-or-transformation test is a two-branched inquiry; an applicant may show that a process claim satisfies § 101 either by showing that his claim is tied to a particular machine, or by showing that his claim […]

Continue Reading →

Thursday at the Federal Circuit: In re Bilski oral arguments on scope of patentable subject matter

This Thursday, the Federal Circuit will hear oral arguments en banc in In re Bilski (No. 2007-1130), a case that will help define the scope of patentable subject matter. Numerous amicus briefs have been filed in the case, and perhaps most interestingly, two of the amici, Bank of America and Regulatory DataCorp, have been granted […]

Continue Reading →

Federal Circuit to consider overruling State Street en banc

The Federal Circuit has, on its own motion, decided to hear a case en banc regarding the scope of patentable subject matter under § 101. The case, In re Bilski (No. 2007-1130), was argued before a panel of the court on October 1, 2007, and deals with the patentability of methods that involve only mental […]

Continue Reading →

No en banc rehearing for case holding “signals” not patentable subject matter

In a precedential order today, the Federal Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc in In re Nuijten. In that case, a panel of the court held that claims drawn to a "signal" did not fall into any of the statutory categories of patentable subject matter and were thus unpatentable under § 101. Judge […]

Continue Reading →

Claims to a “method for mandatory arbitration resolution” not drawn to statutory subject matter

In the second of two decisions regarding the scope of patentable subject matter on Thursday, the Federal Circuit found claims in a patent application directed toward a "method for mandatory arbitration resolution" as not directed toward statutory subject matter under § 101. The USPTO had not addressed the statutory subject matter issue, rather the Federal […]

Continue Reading →

Claims to “signal” with no reference to physical structure not patentable subject matter

In the first of two decisions today regarding the scope of statutory subject matter, the Federal Circuit held that claims directed toward a "signal" were not statutory subject matter under § 101. Earlier, the USPTO allowed claims directed toward a method of embedding data in a signal; the rejected claims were the reverse: they were […]

Continue Reading →

Stay in Touch

Receive the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Sign Up