Kemnetz: Bilski v. Doll Petitioner's Reply Brief Notes: Difference between revisions
From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Created page with "* machine-or-transform requirement is new and changes the law of what can be patented under 101 * "Restricting process or “method” patents to manufacturing methods that satis..." |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
* machine-or-transform requirement is new and changes the law of what can be patented under 101 | * machine-or-transform requirement is new and changes the law of what can be patented under 101 | ||
* "Restricting process or “method” patents to manufacturing methods that satisfy the “machine-or-transformation” test has effectively eliminated patent protection for business methods, contradicting the patent statute's recognition that business methods can be patented." | * "Restricting process or “method” patents to manufacturing methods that satisfy the “machine-or-transformation” test has effectively eliminated patent protection for business methods, contradicting the patent statute's recognition that business methods can be patented." | ||
*Argument against patent petitioners: | |||
# this case - despite meriting en banc review below - is “unremarkable”; | |||
# the recognition of “business method” patents in the Patent Act is not relevant to the questions presented; | |||
# this case provides no opportunity for this Court to address problems arising in technologies outside of Petitioners' risk-hedging method; | |||
# the “machine-or-transformation” test is drawn directly from this Court's precedent; | |||
# no well-founded expectations were disrupted by the decision below. | |||
* this machine-or-transform test seriously hurts further inventing and patenting, and this is the right case to consider changing these rules about what methods/processes are patentable. should not wait for some case in the future to do so. | |||
* | * | ||
Revision as of 03:13, 14 February 2011
- machine-or-transform requirement is new and changes the law of what can be patented under 101
- "Restricting process or “method” patents to manufacturing methods that satisfy the “machine-or-transformation” test has effectively eliminated patent protection for business methods, contradicting the patent statute's recognition that business methods can be patented."
- Argument against patent petitioners:
- this case - despite meriting en banc review below - is “unremarkable”;
- the recognition of “business method” patents in the Patent Act is not relevant to the questions presented;
- this case provides no opportunity for this Court to address problems arising in technologies outside of Petitioners' risk-hedging method;
- the “machine-or-transformation” test is drawn directly from this Court's precedent;
- no well-founded expectations were disrupted by the decision below.
- this machine-or-transform test seriously hurts further inventing and patenting, and this is the right case to consider changing these rules about what methods/processes are patentable. should not wait for some case in the future to do so.
