Hat tip to Joel Miller for the quick update and the copy of the ruling. ..bruce..

Not since 1981 has the Supreme Court undertaken to spell out the kinds of inventions that are eligible for patent rights — the exclusive rights to produce or use an invented device or process, or to license it to others for a royalty fee.  Much has changed since then in the world of commerce, not least the digital revolution.  On Wednesday, the Court was asked to bring the law up to date — an effort that, it is clear, could be highly controversial, depending upon what path patent law modernization might take.

The new case is Bilski, et al., v. Doll (not yet assigned a docket number) — a case that has generated hot and even worldwide controversy since two inventors in 1997 filed an application for a patent on a new method of conducting business.  In much-simplified form, the method devised by Bernard L. Bilski and Rand A. Warsaw provides ways to hedge against the business risks that come with the inevitable rise and fall of prices for commodities.  (The petition filed Wednesday is available in a link contained within this press release.  The link includes the lower court decision at issue; it is a large file.)

On the one side of this controversy in its largest sense are those — like Bilski and Warsaw themselves — who argue that patents must be available to encourage innovation in devising new ways to conduct business in the global information-based economy, including encouragement for new ways of digitizing business methods.

On the other side are consumer advocacy groups and free-market devotees who worry that patent monopolies could tie up methods of creative thought processes, including teaching, judging, creative writing, making medical judgments, or picking juries (some current, real examples of claims).

There is also the possibility, or so it is argued, that the validity of thousands of existing patents may now be in question under a new test of patent eligibility that is at the center of the new case.  That is a test devised by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 9-3 en banc decision last October rejecting patents on all of the Bilski-Warsaw claims.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that the Supreme Court will take the case. But if they do, it could have some profound implications for patent law, and in particular for process and software patents, depending upon how the justices rule and how broad or narrow their ruling is.  ..bruce..

Well, I just received an e-mail from Joel Miller of the ABA Intellectual Property Law Committee (of which I’m a member) that include two decisions:  a US District Court decision (Classen v. Biogen et al.) invalidating several patented methods for “evaluating and improving the safety of immunization schedules”, and a US Federal Court of Appeals ruling upholding that decision based on In re Bilski. Here’s the entire text of the latter’s decision:

In light of our decision in In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment that these claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Dr. Classen’s claims are neither “tied to a particular machine or apparatus” nor do they “transform[] a particular article into a different state or thing.” Bilski, 545 F.3d at 954. Therefore we affirm.

Here are the patents that were held to be invalid (with links):

• US Patent 6,420,139
• US Patent 6,638,739
• US Patent 5,728,385
• US Patent 5,723,283

Interesting times ahead.  ..bruce..

Since PDA-like devices date back to the 1980s, and John Sculley announced the Apple Newton — complete with a touch screen — in early 1992, a year before the earlier patent was filed, one wonders whether these patents can hold up under prior art, and it’s unclear why the patents were granted in the first place.

On the other hand, there are some curious information gaps on the web. Just last week (see entry for 05:29, 18 June 2008), someone stripped out the “History” section of the Wikipedia article on PDAs, which — before being deleted — documented PDAs going back to 1983. Likewise, a commonly-linked article — “The Evolution of the PDA: 1975-1995″ by Evan Koblanz — appears to have been pulled off the web. (Google doesn’t have a cached version, nor does the Internet Wayback Machine.)

Sounds as though someone may be trying to do historical revision in advance of trial. ..bruce..