Difference between revisions of "State Street ruling by US CAFC on 23 July 1998"
(→Press coverage: * [http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/06/bilski-v-kappos-and-the-anti-state-street-majority.html Bilski v. Kappos and the Anti-State-Street-Majority], June 28<sup>th</sup> 2010,) |
|||
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
===Press coverage=== | ===Press coverage=== | ||
− | * | + | * [http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-214968.html&st.cn.nws.rl.ne Floodgates open for patent cases], August 1998, CNet |
− | * | + | * [http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10079859-38.html Patent ruling good or bad for tech?], 2008, CNet |
+ | * [http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/06/bilski-v-kappos-and-the-anti-state-street-majority.html Bilski v. Kappos and the Anti-State-Street-Majority], June 28<sup>th</sup> 2010, Patently-o | ||
==References== | ==References== |
Revision as of 20:37, 28 June 2010
State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. (149 F.3d 1368, 1374 n. 6 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) is often cited as the ruling which opened the floodgates for business method patents, and broadening the scope for software patents.
The patent in question was for a "machine", in the meaning of Section 101 of the Patent Act.
Contents
Effects of Bilski on State Street
The CAFC's ruling on in re Bilski in 2008 is largely seen as overturning the State Street ruling, in whole or in part. However, the two cases do not deal with the same issue, to the relationship isn't clear.
State Street upheld a software patent which claimed to be a "machine". The patent did not claim to be a "process", and Bilski's ruling only dealt with what tests a "process" had to pass in order to be patentable.
In 2009, during the US Supreme Court's hearing of Bilski, the USPTO's lawyer seemed to argue that the CAFC's Bilski ruling (i.e. the particular machine or transformation test) would not change the State Street ruling:
Well, it was machine — that is, in State Street Bank, the claim was not to a process within the meaning of Section 101 [...] It didn’t transform anything, but it would fit — the transformation part would be irrelevant because the machine-or-transformation test is, in our view, the appropriate rubric to apply in construing the statutory term process[1]
At the hearing, Justice Sotomayor also said agreed that Bilski does not directly reinterpret State Street:
Mr. Stewart (USPTO): [...]The Federal circuit was not construing the statutory term “process.” It was construing the statutory term “machine.”[...]
Justice Sotomayor: No ruling in this case is going to change State Street. It wasn’t looking at process or the meaning of “process.” It was looking at something else.[2]
Related pages on ESP Wiki
External links
Press coverage
- Floodgates open for patent cases, August 1998, CNet
- Patent ruling good or bad for tech?, 2008, CNet
- Bilski v. Kappos and the Anti-State-Street-Majority, June 28th 2010, Patently-o