The appellant in this case is Bernard L. Bilski and the appellate is David J. Kappos and according to this case. Bilski filed a patent application for instructions on how to protect against risk in the purchase of energy commodities. In short the question in this case turns on whether a patent can be issued for a claimed invention designed for the business world. The Supreme court decided that the machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for determining the patent eligibility of a process, but rather a useful tool.
The main legal issue in this case is Bilski and Warsaw have applied for patent on methods for hedging risk for commodities trading. The Patent Office unfortunately rejected their patent application on the grounds that it covered an abstract idea and not eligible for patent production, under the Patent Act. As usual Bilski appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and they affirmed the Patent Office's rejection of the patent application. The CAFC actually adopted a "machine-or-transformation test" to judge patentability, and it stated that: a patent applicant "may show that a process claim satisfies sub-section 101 of the Patent Act either by showing that a claim is tied to a particular machine, or by showing his claim transforms an article. Bilski then went further and appealed to the Supreme Court.…show more content… The Court merely agreed that what Bilski sought to patent is an abstract idea, and held that such abstract ideas are unpatentable. This opinion of the Supreme Court was held by majority who agreed that the Federal Circuit's "machine-or-transformation" test at least is useful and important clue as an investigative tool, for patentability, but definitely not the sole or exclusive
