In re Bilski
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
545 F.3d 943 (2008)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Bilski and a colleague (collectively “Bilski”) (plaintiff) submitted a patent application containing 11 claims that recited a method of hedging risk in the field of commodities trading. The patent examiner rejected Bilski’s application under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims only solved a purely mathematical problem and thus was solely an abstract idea not directed to the technological arts. Bilski appealed to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (“PTO”) Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”), which held that the examiner erred in applying the “technological arts” test, but nonetheless affirmed the examiner’s rejection of Bilski’s application. The Board held that to be patent-eligible, an invention must transform subject matter from one state to another. However, Bilski’s claims did not involve the “transformation” of anything and thus did not produce a “useful, concrete, and tangible result.” Bilski appealed the Board’s rejection of the application.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Michel, J.)
Dissent (Newman, J.)
Dissent (Mayer, J.)
Dissent (Rader, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
