June 28, 2010
The New York Times
The door to the patent office should remain open to those who create methods of doing business, the Supreme Court said in a long-awaited decision released on Monday. The plaintiffs in the case, Bernard L. Bilski and Rand A. Warsaw, tried to patent a system that institutions like businesses and schools could use to hedge the seasonal risks of buying energy. The question at issue in was whether a patent should be granted on processes that do not meet what is known as the “machine-or-transformation” test — that is, the process is not tied to a particular machine or does not change a particular article into a different state or thing. Finnegan partner J. Michael Jakes, who represented Bilski and Warsaw, said that he and his clients were “disappointed by today’s decision” because they believed that the hedging method should have been patentable. “We are pleased,” he continued, with the broader message of the case — that business methods could be patented, and that process patents would not be limited to the machine-or-transformation test. He said that the Bilski/Warsaw patent application would be resubmitted.
Commentary
May 20, 2026
Award/Ranking
Finnegan Partner Antje Brambrink Shortlisted for Women in Business Law EMEA Award
May 13, 2026
Press Release
Finnegan Secures Decisive ITC Victory for Innoscience in Final Determination
May 11, 2026
Award/Ranking
Associates Rank Finnegan “Best of the Best” in BTI Associate Satisfaction Survey
May 7, 2026
Announcement
Finnegan Partner Ningling Wang Becomes President of Licensing Executives Society International
May 4, 2026
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.