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
Patent Strategy Could Shape Financing, Valuation and Risk in Offshore Energy Projects
June 30, 2026
Award/Ranking
Finnegan’s European Practices and Attorneys Highlighted in 2026 Managing IP Rankings
June 25, 2026
Press Release
BMW Obtains Preliminary Injunction Against Zync; Federal Court Orders Zync to Halt ITC Trade Secret
June 23, 2026
Award/Ranking
Six Finnegan Partners Recognized in the 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global IP Lawyers
June 22, 2026
Commentary
U.S. Judge Rules Forum-Selection Clause Bars Zync from Pursuing ITC Trade Secret Case
June 15, 2026
Award/Ranking
World Trademark Review Recognizes Three Finnegan Partners on its 2026 Global Leaders List
June 24, 2026
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.