Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Post-Bilski Era Gets Underway

Posted by kdawson on from the method-in-their-madness-but-no-apparatus dept.

bfwebster writes "A set of pharmaceutical process patents for 'evaluating and improving the safety of immunization schedules' (Classen v. Biogen et al.; see US Patents 6,420,139; 6,638,379; 5,728,385; 5,723,283) were held to be invalid due to unpatentability. The decision was appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, but was upheld with a terse citation to In re Bilski (which decision we discussed here). Here's the entire text of the appeals decision: 'In light of our decision in In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment that these claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dr. Classen's claims are neither "tied to a particular machine or apparatus" nor do they "transform a particular article into a different state or thing." Bilski, 545 F.3d at 954. Therefore we affirm.' It will be interesting to see what happens when these same standards start getting applied to software-related patents."

3 of 94 comments (clear)

  1. It's really not a huge change by CaptainPatent · · Score: 4, Informative

    As a software examiner I can say that this honestly doesn't change a lot in our art unit. If the implementation could occur in someone's head then no physical transformation takes place (i.e. software steps that aren't claimed to be on a computer.)

    There are only a small amount of applications this effects and it's very easy to overcome, although I unfortunately can't go into much more depth than that.

    --
    Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
  2. In other words... by maz2331 · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's a virtual invention and gets no protection. Patents after Bilski pretty much have to be tied to a particular machine or change something in meat-space.

  3. Re:Irrelevant. by florescent_beige · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, the Wikipedia page for Bilski quotes the court as having said:

    "We leave to future cases the elaboration of the precise contours of machine implementation, as well as the answers to particular questions, such as whether or when recitation of a computer suffices to tie a process claim to a particular machine."

    So I think the question remains open.

    --
    Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller