June 28, 2010
BusinessWeek.com
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against two men who sought to patent a system for hedging energy trades today in the highly anticipated Bilski v. Kappos opinion. The Supreme Court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision against Bilski that said methods can be patented only if they have some physical component, through either a connection to a machine or their power to transform an item into a different state. The ruling was the first time in 29 years that the court voted on what types of innovations qualify for legal protection. While the decision was unanimous, the justices divided 5-4 in their reasoning, with the majority declining to bar all patents on methods of conducting business. Finnegan partner J. Michael Jakes who represented Bilski and Warsaw, said it may just mean a rewording of the patent application to “make the claims less abstract.” “For most patent owners, it’s a very good decision,” Jakes stated. “It eliminates the federal circuit’s very restrictive test and leaves open patents for things that are not physical” inventions.
Award/Ranking
Finnegan Shortlisted for the 2024 Asian Legal Business Japan Law Awards
April 26, 2024
Award/Ranking
Finnegan Named Firm of the Year at the 2024 Managing Intellectual Property Americas Awards
April 26, 2024
Commentary
World IP Day: EPO Reveals 33% Jump in Cleantech Inventions Over Five Years
April 26, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.