Bilski v. Kappos

Holding: The Court held that the invention, in this case, could not be patented. More broadly, however, the Court held that business methods can be patented, even if does not pass the "machine or transformation" test.

Judgment: Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy on June 28, 2010. Justice Stevens filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Scalia joined as to Part II.

Briefs and Documents

Merits Briefs

• Brief for Petitioner Bernard L. Bilski and Rand A. Warsaw
• Brief for Respondent David J. Kappos, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, United States Trademark Office
• Reply Brief for Petitioner Bernard L. Bilski and Rand A. Warsaw

Amicus Briefs

• Brief for Timothy F. McDonough, Ph.D. in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for Borland Software Corporation in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the Novartis Corporation in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for Caris Diagnostics, Inc., in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for Georgia Biomedical Partnership, Inc., in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the Boston Patent Law Association in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for Accenture and Pitney Bowes Inc. in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for John Sutton in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for University of South Florida in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for Washington State Patent Law Association in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for Entrepreneurial Software Companies in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for Houston Intellectual Property Law Association in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for Dr. Ananda Chakrabarty in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for AwakenIP, LLC in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for Double Rock Corporation, Island Intellectual Property LLC, LIDs Capital LLC, Intrasweep LLC, Access Control Advantage, Inc., EComp Consultants, Pipeline Trading Systems LLC, Rearden Capital Corporation, Craig Mowry and PCT Capital LLC in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for Telecommunication Systems, Inc. In Support of Neither Party and For Purely Prospective Application Of Any Adoption Of The New Legal Test Applied Below in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the Intellectual Property Section of the Nevada State Bar in Support of Respondent
• Brief for the Software Freedom Law Center in Support of Respondent
• Brief for the Knowledge Ecology Center in Support of Respondent
• Brief for the William Mitchell College of Law Intellectual Property Institute in Support of Respondent
• Brief for the American Bar Association in Support of Respondent
• Brief for Eleven Law Professors and AARP in Support of Respondent
• Brief for Internet Retailers in Support of Respondent
• Brief for Entrepreneurial and Consumer Advocates in Support of Respondent
• Brief for American Insurance Association, the Hartford Financial Services, Jackson National Life Insurance Company, Pacific Life Insurance Company, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (U.S.), and Transamerica Life Insurance Company in Support of Respondent
• Brief for Microsoft Corporation, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., and Symantec Corporation in Support of Respondent
• Brief for the Foundation For A Free Information Infrastructure, IP Justice, and Four Global Software Professionals and Business Leaders in Support of Respondent
• Brief for the Free Software Foundation in Support of Respondent
• Brief for the Bank of America Corporation, Barclays Capital Inc., the Clearing House Association L.L.C., the Financial Services Roundtable, Google Inc., Metlife, Inc., and Morgan Stanley in Support of Respondent
• Brief for Adams Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Tethys Bioscience, Inc., in Support of Respondent
• Brief for Professors Peter S. Menell and Michael S. Meuder in Support of Respondent
• Brief for the Computer & Communications Industry Association in Support of Respondent
• Brief for the American Medical Association, the American College of Medical Genetics, the American Society of Human Genetics, the Association of Professors of Human and Medical Genetics, and the Mayo Clinic in Support of Respondent
• Brief for the Software and Information Industry Association in Support of Respondent
• Brief for Bloomberg L.P. in Support of Respondent
• Brief for the State of Oregon in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for the Conejo Valley Bar Association in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for the Association Internationale Pour La Protection de la Propriete Intellectuelle and the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property U.S. in Support of Reversal
• Brief for the Intellectual Property Owners Association in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for the Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for On Time Systems, Inc., in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for Regulatory DataCorp, Inc., American Express Company, Palm Inc., Rockwell Automation, Inc., and SAP America, Inc., in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for La Fédération Internationale Des Conseils En Propriété Industrielle in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for Dolby Laboratories, Inc., DTS, Inc., and SRS Labs, Inc., in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for Law Professor Kevin Emerson Collins in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for Prometheus Laboratories Inc. in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for Legal OnRamp in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for Raymond C. Meiers in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for Monogram Biosciences, Inc. and Genomic Health, Inc. in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for Medtronic in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for the American Intellectual Property Law Association in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for 20 Law and Business Professors in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for the International Business Machines Corporation in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for the San Diego Intellectual Property Law Associaton in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for Robert R. Sachs and Daniel R. Brownstone in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for Teles AG in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for the Austin Intellectual Property Law Association in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for Yahoo!, Inc., in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for the Biotechnology Industry Organization, Advanced Medical Technology Association, the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, and Regents of University of California in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for the Business Software Alliance in Support of Affirmance
• Brief for Professor Lee A. Hollaar and IEEE-USA in Support of Affirmance
• Brief for Red Hat, Inc., in Support of Affirmance
• Brief for Mark Landesmann in Support of Affirmance
• Brief for Center for Advanced Study and Research In Intellectual Property (CASRIP) of the University of Washington School of Law, and of CASRIP Research Affiliate Scholars in Support of Affirmance

Certiorari-stage documents

• Opinion below (Fed. Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Brief amicus curiae of Boston Patent Law Association in Support of Petitioners
• Brief amici curiae of Accenture and Pitney Bowes, Inc. in Support of Petitioners
• Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association in Support of Petitioners
• Brief amicus curiae of Franklin Pierce Law Center in Support of Petitioners
• Brief amicus curiae of Medistem Inc in Support of Petitioners
• Brief amicus curiae of Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V in Support of Petitioners
• Brief amicus curiae of John P. Sutton in Support of Petitioners
• Brief amicus curiae of Borland Software Corporation in Support of Petitioners
• Petitioner’s reply