25 Pages Posted: 12 Oct 2010
The Supreme Court’s decision in Bilski v. Kappos made it clear that generalized methods of financial hedging are abstract ideas that are ineligible for patent protection. However, the Court left the framework for determining abstraction versus concreteness in future cases unclear, offered only “clues” for drawing such distinctions.
In this article, we attempt to provide the beginnings of such a framework. We start by discussing the clues we think are most likely to be useful to the Patent Office and the courts in developing a jurisprudence of abstractness as a disqualification from patent protection. We then discuss why, in light of these clues and in line with sound patent policy, business and service method innovations, while not categorically unpatentable, should still generally be excluded from patent protection as abstract ideas. Finally, we provide further support for this approach by suggesting that taking the clues of unpatentability seriously may facilitate administrative and judicial efficiency in reviewing patent claims when assessing whether they satisfy patent subject matter rules.
Keywords: patent, Bilski, abstract idea
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Schultz, Jason and Samuelson, Pamela, 'Clues' for Determining Whether Business and Service Innovations are Unpatentable Abstract Ideas. Lewis & Clark Law Review, Vol. 15; UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper No. 1690882. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1690882
By Peter Menell