Federal Circuit Revises Test For Patentability Of Processes / Business Methods
November 3, 2008
Kevin X. McGann, Jack Q. Lever Jr.
A decade ago, the Federal Circuit in the State Street Bank case confirmed that methods of performing largely abstract processes such as business methods (in that case, calculating mutual fund share prices) could be the subject of valid patents. In the aftermath of that case, the Patent Office has issued thousands of patents directed to business methods in the financial-services and other industries. Maintaining the viability of those patents just got a lot more complicated.
Although it confirmed the decision reached in State Street Bank and refused to adopt a per-se rule that software and business methods are unpatentable, in its October 30, 2008 en banc ruling in In re Bilski (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/07-1130.pdf), the Federal Circuit has overruled the tests employed in many of its prior precedents confirming the patentability of various business methods and other process claims. From now on, unless changed by the Supreme Court or Congress, the Patent Office and the courts will require a process or method claim to meet at least one of the following two conditions in order to be patentable: (1) it must be limited in a non-trivial way to a particular machine implementation; or (2) it must act to transform a particular article into a different state or thing.
The claimed invention in Bilski was an allegedly novel method for balancing risk for consumers or producers of consumable commodities. The en banc Court ruled that this method was not patentable subject matter, because (1) the claims were usable in a variety of contexts and not tied to a particular machine implementation; and (2) the claims operated on abstract concepts like "risk" and did not transform any physical article or even data corresponding to a physical article.
While the Bilski opinion itself does not automatically invalidate any existing patents, businesses in fields where business method patents are significant should consider various steps to improve their post-Bilski positions. For example, companies with pending patent applications directed to business methods or other processes should review those claims in light of Bilski, and perhaps add new claims meeting the new standard for patentable subject matter. Similarly, businesses with issued software or business method patents or soon to be issue patents may wish to consider filing continuation applications, delaying or withdrawing a patent from issue, or (assuming the other requirements are met) pursuing reissue proceedings to amend or add claims. On the other hand, businesses involved in litigation over such patents or facing claims of infringement may wish to consider the possible additional defense in litigation or declaratory-relief actions that the patent in question is invalid because it does not claim patentable subject matter.
If you have any questions or would like more information about how the Federal Circuit's decision may affect your business or patents, please contact us.
Los Angeles
Glenn W. Trost, Partner
+ 1 213 620 7700
New York
Kevin X. McGann, Partner
+ 1 212 819 8312
Palo Alto
Mark Weinstein, Partner
+ 1 650 213 0300
Washington D.C.
Jack Q. Lever, Partner
+1 202 626 3600
This Client Alert is provided for your convenience and does not constitute legal advice. It is prepared for the general information of our clients and other interested persons. This Alert should not be acted upon in any specific situation without appropriate legal advice, and it may include links to websites other than the White & Case website. White & Case LLP has no responsibility for any websites other than its own, and does not endorse the information, content, presentation or accuracy, or make any warranty, express or implied, regarding any other website.
This Client Alert is protected by copyright. Material appearing herein may be reproduced or translated with appropriate credit.
© 2008 White & Case LLP
|