|
''Bilski v. Kappos'', , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for determining the patent eligibility of a process, but rather "a useful and important clue, an investigative tool, for determining whether some claimed inventions are processes under § 101."〔(''Bilski v. Kappos'', No. 08-964 (2010). )〕 In so doing, the Supreme Court affirmed the rejection of an application for a patent on a method of hedging losses in one segment of the energy industry by making investments in other segments of that industry, on the basis that the abstract investment strategy set forth in the application was simply not patentable subject matter. ==Majority opinion== The Court affirmed the judgment of the Federal Circuit in ''In re Bilski'', the case below. However, it rejected the machine-or-transformation test as a sole test of patentability based on an interpretation of the language of § 101.〔''Bilski'', slip op. at 8.〕 The Court rejected the Federal Circuit's statutory interpretation regarding the word "process," finding the definition in § 100(b) to be sufficient without turning to the canon of ''noscitur a sociis.''〔''Bilski'', slip op. at 7.〕 Section 100(b) defines process as a "process, art or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material." The Court looked to ''Gottschalk v. Benson'' and ''Parker v. Flook'', and noted that both had explicitly refused to rely on the machine-or-transformation test as the sole test for patent eligibility.〔''Gottschalk v. Benson'', 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972).〕〔''Parker v. Flook'', 437 U.S. 584, 588 (1978).〕 The Court also rejected a categorical exclusion of business method patents from eligibility, reasoning that the definition of "process" in § 100(b) includes the word "method," which appears to comprehend some forms of business method patents.〔''Bilski'', slip op. at 10.〕 35 U.S.C. § 273(b)(1) also provides as a defense to patent infringement prior use of a "method of conducting or doing business." By acknowledging the defense, the statute also acknowledged the possibility of business method patents.〔''Bilski'', slip op. at 11.〕 Regarding Bilski's claimed subject matter, the Court found that his method of optimizing a fixed bill system for energy markets was an unpatentable abstract idea.〔''Bilski'', slip op. at 15-16.〕 Despite taking a broader reading of patent eligibility for processes, according to the majority opinion "this Court by no means desires to preclude the Federal Circuit’s development of other limiting criteria that further the Patent Act’s purposes and are not inconsistent with its text."〔''Bilski'', slip op. at 16.〕 In the plurality sections of Kennedy's opinion, an overall Court minority opinion as not joined by Scalia, he notes that strict adherence to only "the machine-or-transformation test would create uncertainty as to the patentability of software, advanced diagnostic medicine techniques, and inventions based on linear programming, data compression, and the manipulation of digital signals" but "the Court today is not commenting on the patentability of any particular invention, let alone holding that any of the above-mentioned technologies from the Information Age should or should not receive patent protection."〔''Bilski'', slip op. at 9-10.〕 Kennedy also suggests that a categorical exclusion of some types of business methods from patent eligibility might be legitimate if that rule was based on the idea that purely abstract ideas are not patentable.〔''Bilski'', slip op. at 12.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Bilski v. Kappos」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|