Download 08-964-austin-intellectual-property-law-association.pdf

Contents : No. 08-964 In The Supreme Court Of the United States BERNARD L. BILSKI AND RAND A. WARSAW PETITIONERS v. JOHN J. DOLL ACTING UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE RESPONDENT. On Writ of Certiorari to The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE AUSTIN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY Jennifer C. Kuhn Esq. Counsel of Record 5003 Timberline Drive Austin Texas 78746 (512) 731-1847 Counsel for Amicus Curiae Austin Intellectual Property Law Association Austin 52789v2 i Questions Presented for Review 1) Whether the Federal Circuit erred by holding that a "process" must be tied to a particular machine or apparatus or transform a particular article into a different state or thing ("machine-or-transformation" test) to be eligible for patent under 35 U.S.C. 101 despite this Court's precedent declining to limit the broad statutory grant of patent eligibility for "any" new and useful process beyond excluding patents for "laws of nature physical phenomena and abstract ideas." 2) Whether the Federal Circuit's "machine-ortransformation" test for patent eligibility which effectively forecloses meaningful patent protection to many business methods contradicts the clear Congressional intent that "patents protect "method s of doing or conducting business." 35 U.S.C. 273. Austin 52789v2 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Questions Presented for Review.........................i Table of Authorities .......................................... iv I. Introduction and Summary of Argument ................................................. 2 The Federal Circuit's Bilski Decision Is Contrary to the Canon that Statutory Terms Must Be Construed Consistently Throughout a Statute.............................. 5 A. Statutory Interpretation Begins With the Language of Sections 101 and 100(b).................................... 6 B. A Court Must Follow an Explicit Statutory Definition Such as 35 U.S.C. 100(b) ................ 7 C. The Fact That the Statutory Definition of the Term "Process" in 35 U.S.C. 100(b) Recites the Term "Process" Illustrates That Congress Intended to Include the Common Law Meaning of "Process" Within a Broader Statutory Definition of "Process" ....................... 8 II. Austin 52789v2 iii III. The Federal Circuit's Interpretation in Bilski Is Contrary to the Canon that Statutory Terms Should Not Be Interpreted So As to Render Another Portion of the Same Statute Superfluous.............. 12 Conclusion ............................................. 14 IV. Austin 52789v2 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Bankamerica Corp. v. United States 462 U.S. 122 (1983)....................................... 5 Diamond v. Diehr 450 U.S. 175 (1981)....................................... 6 Estate of Cowart v. Niklos Drilling Co. 505 U.S. 469 (1992)....................................... 5 Gottschalk v. Benson 409 U.S. 63 (1972)....................................... 10 In re Bilski 545 F.3d 943 (2008) ............................ passim Kungys v. United States 485 U.S. 759 (1988) (Scalia J.) ................ 3 9 Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Serv. Inc. 486 U.S. 825 (1988)..................................... 12 NLRB v. Amax Coal Co. 453 U.S. 322 (1981)....................................... 3 Parker v. Flook 437 U.S. 584 (1978)..................................... 10 Austin 52789v2

INFO HASH : 2a4d1ca9c8c2094faa9ec8c8770ce9c09f9659f5

Download now

File Size: 144.1 kb