Supreme Court of the United States
Bilski v. Kappos, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, Pate — Stevens, J…
June 28, 2010561 U.S. 593
Summary
The Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s decision that the petitioners’ method of managing commodity risk is not patent‑eligible because a business‑method claim is not a “process” under 35 U.S.C. §101; the machine‑or‑transformation test is a useful clue but not the exclusive test. Justice Stevens’ opinion, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, concurs in the judgment, and Justice Breyer’s separate concurrence agrees with the judgment.
Holding
- Whether the machine‑or‑transformation test is the exclusive test for determining patent‑eligible processes under 35 U.S.C. §101.. The machine‑or‑transformation test is not the sole test governing §101 analyses; it is a useful and important clue but not exclusive.
- Whether petitioners’ claimed method of managing commodity risk constitutes patent‑eligible subject matter.. The claimed method is not a patent‑eligible “process” under §101 because it is a business method that does not tie to a particular machine nor transform an article into a different state or thing.
Docket 08-964
Cited authorities
- 35 U.S.C. § 101
- 35 U.S.C. § 273
- 35 U.S.C. § 101
- 35 U.S.C. § 101
- 1 Stat. 109
- 1 Stat. 319
- 14 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 577
- 5 Stat. 117