This case involves the patentability of business processes. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit adopted a standard that makes it harder for business processes to be patented. It decided that only methods that are "tied to a specific machine or apparatus" or transform "a particular article into a different state or thing" qualify for a patent. Previously, the standard did not require the use of a particular machine as one alternative, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has been much more restrictive in approving patents. The case attracted nearly 40 amicus briefs in the Federal Circuit, and the Supreme Court's decision will have an important effect not only on business process patents, but potentially on computer software and financial instruments as well.
On 6/28/10, the Court affirmed the Federal Circuit Court. It did not, however, agree that a patent-eligible process must be tied to a machine or the transformation of an article. It found that the machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for patent eligibility, and business methods might be used to secure a "process" patent. Nevertheless, it rejected the attempt to patent both the concept of hedging risk and the application of that concept to energy markets, since they are nonpatentable abstract ideas.