A Critique of Bilski’s Textual Analysis

The majority in Bilski rightly decided not to categorically exclude business methods from patent-eligibility under § 101. However, in my view, the majority?s “textual” analysis of § 101 is at best strains credulity, and weakens considerably the legitimacy of their strongest argument (and therefore the opinion as a whole), which is that the case should be decided based on the Court's prior decisions in Benson, Flook, and Diehr.

According to the majority, the “Court has more than once cautioned that courts should not read into the patent laws limitations and conditions which the legislature has not expressed.”1 However, the Court has, on more than one occasion, disregarded its own admonition. Perhaps the most egregious example of this was in Gandy v. Main Belting Co.,2 in which the Court read into the patent laws the limitation that any invalidating use or sale must be “in this country.”3 In 1892, at the time of the decision, the law allowed a patent for any invention “not in public use or on sale for more than two years prior to his application.”4 The Court conceded that “the language of this section contains no restriction as to the place or country wherein the public use is made of the invention,” but nevertheless held that an invalidating use or sale must be in this country.5

A more recent example of the Court reading limitations into the patent laws is Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc.,6 in which the Court rejected the petitioner?s “nontextual argument” that the on-sale bar applies only after the invention is reduced to practice, but then proceeded to provide a similarly nontextual interpretation that the on-sale bar applies as soon as the invention is “ready for patenting.”7

Please see full article below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.