Bilski Decision or No Decision

The Supreme Court rejects any attempt by the CAFC to limit patentability to a single test. The machine or transformation test is one way to show patentability, but it is not the sole way to do so.

The telling footnote:

Even if the machine-or-transformation test may not define the scope of a patentable process, it would be a grave mistake to assume thatanything with a " ‘useful, concrete and tangible result,’ " State Street Bank & Trust v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F. 3d 1368, 1373 (CA Fed. 1998), may be patented.

Excerpt from the decision:

The patent application here can be rejected under our precedents on the unpatentability of abstract ideas. The Court, therefore, need not define further what constitutes a patentable "process," beyond pointing to the definition of that term provided in §100(b) and looking to the guideposts in Benson, Flook, and Diehr. And nothing in today’s opinion should be read as endorsing interpretations of §101 that the Court of Appeals forthe Federal Circuit has used in the past. See, e.g., State Street, 149 F. 3d, at 1373; AT&T Corp., 172 F. 3d, at 1357. It may be that the Court of Appeals thought it needed tomake the machine-or-transformation test exclusive precisely because its case law had not adequately identifiedless extreme means of restricting business method patents, including (but not limited to) application of our opinions in Benson, Flook, and Diehr. In disapproving anexclusive machine-or-transformation test, we by no meansforeclose the Federal Circuit’s development of other limiting criteria that further the purposes of the Patent Actand are not inconsistent with its text.