ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "State Street ruling by US CAFC on 23 July 1998"

((directly or by describing a software idea as if it were a business method).)
(External links: * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Street_Bank_v._Signature_Financial_Group State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group], '''Wikipedia''')
Line 30: Line 30:
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
 +
 +
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Street_Bank_v._Signature_Financial_Group State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group], '''Wikipedia'''
 +
 
===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/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://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
+
* [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], 28 June 2010, '''Patently-o'''
  
 
==References==
 
==References==

Revision as of 12:49, 27 September 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 (directly or by describing a software idea as if it were a business method).

The patent in question was for a "machine", in the meaning of Section 101 of the Patent Act. The State Street ruling introduced the low standard of "useful, concrete and tangible result".

In the Bilski v. Kappos (2010, USA) decision, two concurring opinions forming a five-judge majority agreed that this test should not be kept.[1]

Effects of Bilski on State Street

Can you help? This section is now out of date

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[2]

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.[3]

Related pages on ESP Wiki

External links

Press coverage

References

  1. "Bilski v. Kappos and the Anti-State-Street-Majority". http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/06/bilski-v-kappos-and-the-anti-state-street-majority.html. "Although not rejected by the majority opinion, it is clear that the broad “useful, concrete, and tangible result” test is dead. [...] The two concurrences are in agreement on this point and are signed by five Supreme Court Justices — leading to a second majority on that particular point." 
  2. http://news.swpat.org/2009/11/bilski-hearing-software-patents/
  3. http://news.swpat.org/2009/11/bilski-hearing-software-patents/