Client Alerts & Insights
Supreme Court Decides Case Regarding What Subject Matter is Patentable
June 1, 2010
In Bilski v. Kappos the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s rejection of patent claims to a business method for hedging risk in commodities trading. However, the sharply divided Court upheld the patentability of business methods as a category and disapproved of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s machine-or-transformation test for determining subject matter patentability. The Bilski decision reaffirms or at least does not question the patentability of various technologies including software-based inventions.
In its decision, the Federal Circuit had set forth a machine-or-transformation test for determining whether a process or method is eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. §101. Under the Federal Circuit’s machine-or-transformation test, a process was eligible for a patent only 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 U.S. Supreme Court granted Bilski’s petition for review and rendered its opinion on June 28, 2010. U.S., No. 08-964.
Justice Kennedy authored the Court’s opinion. The Court concluded that the machine-or-transformation test is too limiting and that it should not be “the sole test” for determining patentable subject matter eligibility. After stating that “Congress plainly contemplated that the patent laws would be given wide scope,” Justice Kennedy sought to rein in the scope of subject matter patent eligibility by restating the three Supreme Court established exceptions to the statute’s “broad patent-eligibility principles.” Specifically, “laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable subject matter.
The Court found that Bilski’s claims were directed to abstract ideas and, therefore, not patentable subject matter. The Court’s opinion, however, offers little guidance as to how to determine what is or is not an abstract idea. Justice Breyer’s concurrence, which Justice Scalia joined, attempts to offer some clues in this regard.
Justice Stevens wrote a concurring opinion joined by three other Justices stating that he would have held that business methods were per se not patentable subject matter.
The Court left it open for the Federal Circuit to develop a less restrictive test for making the subject matter eligibility determination. “In disapproving an exclusive machine-or-transformation test, we by no means foreclose the Federal Circuit’s development of other limiting criteria that further the purposes of the Patent Act and are not inconsistent with its text.”
Bilski was perceived as a case that could render entire categories of patents worthless, including not only business methods, but also various other “Information Age” patents such as medical diagnostics and other software-based patents. However, that did not occur. The Court majority has a fairly expansive view of patentable subject matter eligibility and this should put to rest questions regarding the patentability of these technologies.
Soon after the Bilski opinion issued, the USPTO released a memorandum to the examining corps instructing them to, at least in the interim, continue to use the machine-or-transformation test to determine patentable subject matter eligibility and issue rejections if the claimed invention does not meet the test. However, we would expect that with the considerable shadow that Bilski casts on the machine-or-transformation test, non-patentable subject matter rejections based on the test would fall out of favor at the USPTO and that the office would instead concentrate its efforts in determining whether the claimed invention is novel, non-obvious, and fully and particularly described.
Additional Information
For additional information, please contact Luis Carrion at 216.363.4635 or lcarrion@beneschlaw.com.
Latest News
Social Media Might Have to Rethink Platform Design and Features as Courts Reject Communications Decency Act, Section 230 Defense
On April 10, 2026, on appeal from a motion to dismiss, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act did not bar Massachusetts’s claims that Meta engaged in unfair business practices by creating a platform that was addictive to teens and failing to warn the public about it.
SDNY Bankruptcy Court: Solvent Debtors Face Higher Hurdle to Avoid Default Interest Under 11 U.S.C. § 506(b)
Key Takeaways Following a recent decision from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, solvent debtors …
$2B Trade Secrets Verdict Overturned by the Virginia Supreme Court
Recently, the Virginia Supreme Court vacated a $2B jury award and ordered a new trial in a state trade secrets action. The justices held that the circuit court judge made four significant errors leading to Virginia’s largest jury award. Significantly, according to the justices, the circuit court judge put an improper burden of proof on defendants to show that its sales were unrelated to the misappropriation to avoid plaintiff being awarded defendant’s full sales revenue as opposed to the plaintiff having the burden to show defendant’s actions proximately caused plaintiff’s damages.
Ohio Senate Introduces Bipartisan Bill to Establish Paid Family and Medical Leave
On April 23, 2026, a new bipartisan bill was introduced in the Ohio Senate that would provide paid family and medical leave to Ohio workers. Sponsored by Democrat Beth Litson and Republican Louis W. Blessing III, Senate Bill 396 largely mirrors programs already established in several other states, including California and New York.