26 thoughts on “Bilski v. Kappos

  1. how does one prove infringement of such claims?

    Proving infringement is the patentee’s problem, not the PTO’s problem. It has nothing to do with whether the patent is valid.

  2. The claims of Bilski read on, for example, a human being sitting at a desk. This amounts to an abstract idea–how does one prove infringement of such claims?

    The issue is similar to the issue of specificity raised in 35 USC 112, which requires that the claims be specific enough to inform the public what is patented.

    The claims in the State Street case cover a data processing system–ie a “machine”. It is possible to prove infringement of such a claim.

    End of discussion.

  3. Looks like Stevens might have lost his majority opinion. Odd that Breyer read his dissent from the bench, but that JPL did not.

  4. If Justice Stevens is indeed the author, it will probably be the last one published unless Chief Justice Roberts writes a majority opinion. It goes in reverse senority…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>