Kemnetz: Bilski v. Doll Petitioner's Reply Brief Notes

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Revision as of 23:30, 13 February 2011 by Kristen kemnetz (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search
  • 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:
  1. this case - despite meriting en banc review below - is “unremarkable”;
  2. the recognition of “business method” patents in the Patent Act is not relevant to the questions presented;
  3. this case provides no opportunity for this Court to address problems arising in technologies outside of Petitioners' risk-hedging method;
  4. the “machine-or-transformation” test is drawn directly from this Court's precedent;
  5. 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.
  • there is a LOT of outside "amicus" support for the petitioner's case
  • the machine-or-transform test means bad news for any business method patent holders
  • many of the amicus are technology, computer software, electrical companies (accenture, google, Phillips electronics)