These days, the term "risk" amounts to patent profanity, sounding the death knell of a software or
business method patent.
rise" or "proliferation" of
business method patents
was not a complete victory for
business method patents.
Patents may validly claim a
business method so long as they specifically describe a new, useful and non-obvious process for achieving a result, but many courts have invalidated such patents for vagueness and over-breadth, and for claiming unpatentable ideas rather than specific processes.
Moreover, eight of the justices expressed significant concerns about
business method patents.
Business method patents have come under increasing scrutiny in recent years.
For instance, while it will depend on the specific details of the writer's
business method, it may be that he could obtain a patent in the USA, but not in Europe.
In 2008, a federal court in the case of In re Bilski changed the requirements for obtaining a
business method patent.
means that the issue of
business method patents, including tax strategy patents, is now more confused than ever, as the current Bilski decision no longer carries much weight, and it is unclear what the Supreme Court is going to decide.
Content covers topics such as: the dangers of means-plus-function clauses in claims; claim drafting; targeting direct infringers; strategies for continued prosecution of patents; statutory subject matter problems affecting software,
business method and biotechnology patents; and, patent design protection.
The Federal Circuit has significantly altered the landscape of
business method patents by holding that to be patentable a business process must meet the "machine or transformation" test (In re Bilski, No.
I AM writing to clarify my letter (October 18) about
business method inventions.
