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.
Press Release
October 6, 2026
Award/Ranking
Finnegan Named an IP Litigation Powerhouse in BTI Litigation Outlook 2027
September 24, 2026
Award/Ranking
Finnegan Receives Top Tier Rankings in World Trademark Review’s Inaugural Copyright 1000 2026
September 23, 2026
Press Release
Finnegan Secures Precedential Pro Bono Federal Circuit Victory for AI Whistleblower
September 23, 2026
Commentary
New Thomas Pink Womenswear Lines Strain ‘Pink’ Pact with Victoria’s Secret
September 21, 2026
Commentary
Pepsi's U.S. Trademark Dispute Could Reshape Brand Choices, Lawsuit Strategy, Lawyers Say
September 17, 2026
Award/Ranking
September 11, 2026
Commentary
Uncrustables Fame Ruling Sets Up Functionality Fight Over Crimped Edge
September 11, 2026
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.