Download 08-964-american-bar-association.pdf

Contents : No. 08-964 IN THE BERNARD L. BILSKI & RAND A. WARSAW Petitioners v. DAVID J. KAPPOS UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit BRIEF OF AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT Of Counsel: Thomas C. Goldstein Michael L. Kiklis CAROLYN B. LAMM Counsel of Record PRESIDENT AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION 321 North Clark Street Chicago IL 60654-7598 (312) 988-5000 October 2 2009 QUESTIONS PRESENTED A) 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 patenting 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." B) 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. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED .................................. i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.................................iii INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE.............. 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT............................... 3 ARGUMENT ......................................................... 4 I. The Court Should Continue to Construe Section 101 Incrementally By Excluding Certain Claims to Subject Matter As NonPatentable Rather Than Adopting A Categorical Rule That May Inadvertently Inhibit Innovation........................................... 4 II. It Is Enough To Resolve This Case That Petitioners Claim An Abstract Idea............... 8 A. This Court's Precedents Correctly Settle That Abstract Ideas Are Not Patentable................................................. 8 B. Petitioners Claim Only An Abstract Idea. ........................................................ 11 III. The Federal Circuit's Categorical "MachineOr-Transformation" Standard Is Contrary To The Statutory Text And This Court's Precedent....................................................... 13 CONCLUSION .................................................... 15 Appendix.............................................................. 1a iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Diamond v. Chakrabarty 447 U.S. 303 (1980) ............................................3 8 Diamond v. Diehr 450 U.S. 175 (1981) ..............................................11 Gottschalk v. Benson 409 U.S. 63 (1972) ......................................9 13 14 In re Bilski 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008).....................6 11 12 J.E.M Ag Supply v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l 534 U.S. 124 (2001) ................................................6 KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................5 Markman v. Westview Instruments Inc. 517 U.S. 370 (1996) ..............................................10 Parker v. Flook 437 U.S. 584 (1978) ..........................................9 14 STATUTES 35 U.S.C. 100(b)....................................................................5 101 .............................................................. passim 102 ........................................................................5 103 ........................................................................5 273 .........................................................................i OTHER AUTHORITIES United States Patent Classification 705/36T: Tax Strategies http://www.uspto.gov/patft/class705 sub36t. html.........................................................................9 U.S. Const. Article I 8 cl. 8 ..................................14 INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE1 Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.3 the American Bar Association ("ABA") as amicus curiae respectfully submits this brief in support of respondent. The ABA urges the Court to affirm the judgment of the Federal Circuit but to apply a different legal standard. Specifically the ABA urges the Court to conclude that Claim 1 of the patent in suit falls within the Court's long-standing precedent pursuant to which "abstract ideas " including mental processes do not constitute patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The ABA is the largest voluntary professional membership organization and the leading organization of legal professionals in the United States. Its nearly 400 000 members span all 50 states and other jurisdictions and include attorneys in private law firms corporations non-profit organizations government agencies and prosecutor and public defender offices as well as judges legislators law professors and law students.2 Pursuant to Rule 37.6 amicus curiae certifies that no counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part and that no person or entity other than amicus its members or its counsel has made a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief. The parties have consented to the filing of this brief. 1 Neither this brief nor the decision to file it should be interpreted to reflect the views of any judicial member of the American Bar Association. No inference should be drawn that any member of the Judicial Division Council has participated in the adoption or endorsement of the positions in this brief. This brief was not circulated to any member of the Judicial Division Council prior to filing. 2

INFO HASH : d4eaed056874c834aee286f2cafc7e45a4420543

Download now

File Size: 146.4 kb