As an update on Bilski’s petition for certioriari, Patently-O has collected the amicus briefs that have been filed in support of the petitioner Bilski. The PTO has been granted an extension of time until April 1 to file its brief in opposition. At that time, amicus briefs supporting the PTO will also be due.
Of note is the brief in support of the petition filed by the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA). AIPLA argues that the Federal Circuit’s machine-or-transformation test is not required by any Supreme Court precedent. Indeed, several cases explicitly hold that the machine-or-transformation test is not required to determine eligible subject matter. AIPLA also argues that the Federal Circuit test is too rigid (a common theme of late when attacking Federal Circuit decisions) and will hamper innovation. Finally, AIPLA argues that overly broad patents should be dealt with by other provisions of the Patent Act, namely § § 102, 103, and 112. Any changes to patentable subject matter should be left to Congress and not dictated by the Federal Circuit.
A decision on the petition should come by the end of the current term of the Court in June. If the Court agrees to hear the case, it will be during the October 2009 term with a decision coming by the end of that term in June 2010.
March 11, 2009 at 12:15 pm |
[...] sounds a lot like AIPLA’s amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Bilski, and what others have been saying even earlier. In particular, [...]
May 5, 2009 at 2:16 pm |
[...] the issues. With Dickinson as executive director, AIPLA has continued this stance on the issues, filing an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in Bilski and urging the Federal Circuit not to proscribe patents for biomedical diagnostic tools, among [...]
August 6, 2009 at 1:46 pm |
[...] the curb business method patents that appear trivial. Where have I heard that before? Perhaps here and [...]