Bilski Ruling, Business (Almost) as Usual | Corporate Counsel" /> Bilski Ruling, Business (Almost) as Usual | Corporate Counsel" /> Bilski Ruling, Business (Almost) as Usual" />

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
In the last batch of opinions to which he will ever contribute, retiring U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens fell one vote shy in his goal of moving methods of doing business outside the scope of the country’s patent system. And he marked the occasion by weighing in with a concurring opinion that reads an awful lot like a dissent. Ultimately, despite widespread speculation that Stevens would cap his distinguished career by writing the majority opinion in Bilski v. Kappos, Justice Anthony Kennedy wound up as the author of the controlling opinion in the closely watched patent case. While all nine justices agreed that the “invention” at issue in the case—a method for hedging weather-related risk in energy trading developed by Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw—was too abstract to merit patent protection, only four signed on fully to Kennedy’s opinion. That opinion held that the “machine-or-transformation” test for patentability– created by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its Bilski decision– was a “useful clue” when gauging a subject’s patentability but shouldn’t be considered the only applicable test.

Also See: Court’s Opinion (pdf)

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2017 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.