• Home
  • News
  • Justices Consider Patentability of Speed Dating and Horse Whispering

U.S. Supreme Court

Justices Consider Patentability of Speed Dating and Horse Whispering

Posted Nov 10, 2009 8:53 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

Justice Stephen G. Breyer says he has a “great, wonderful, really original method of teaching antitrust law”—it keeps 80 percent of his students awake. Can the method be patented? he asked in oral arguments yesterday.

The hypothetical was one of several bandied about as the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether patents can be issued for business methods that aren’t tied to a machine or don’t involve a physical transformation.

In Bilski v. Kappos, justices suggested hypotheticals “that they clearly found ludicrous,” the New York Times reports. According to the National Law Journal, some of the justices' comments in the long-awaited argument “bordered on the derisive.”

Justice Antonin Scalia was among the justices who appeared skeptical of arguments on behalf of two patent seekers, Rand Warsaw and Bernie Bilski, the Washington Post reports. The two men hope to patent their mathematical method of hedging that allows utility companies to offer uniform energy bills to consumers.

"Let's take training horses," Scalia said. "Don't you think that some people, horse whisperers or others, had some, you know, some insights into the best way to train horses? And that should have been patentable on your theory."

Scalia also wondered about the possibility of a patent for a book on how to win friends and influence people, while Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked about a patent on a method of speed dating, according to the Times.

None of the justices appeared to side with arguments advanced on behalf of Warsaw and Bilski, according to the NLJ. At the same time, “It was not certain that a vote against the Bilski-Warsaw patent would sweep away patents for computer software or medical diagnostics, as some have feared.”

The Washington Post echoed the NLJ’s assessment. “While the justices seemed reluctant to agree with the inventors of the business strategy, they also seemed wary of setting a standard that might deprive inventors of unforeseeable inventions of patent protection,” its story says.

Comments

1.

B. McLeod
Nov 10, 2009 9:26 AM CST

So now Scalia is picking on “horse whisperers”?  I see no horse sense in that.  Neigh.  Neigh.  Perhaps there is a burr under his saddle to spur these unbridled analogies (of course, of course).

Flag this comment

2.

AndytheLawyer
Nov 10, 2009 5:11 PM CST

Justice Sotomayor’s doubts aside, I’d bet a viable method of speed seduction would be patentable.

Flag this comment

3.

Dale B. Halling
Nov 11, 2009 9:28 AM CST

The hypothetical examples show that the Justices do not understand the difference between 101 issues, 112 issues, 102 issues, and 103 issues.  They also show that they do not understand the underlying technology.  They do not understand the difference between patentability and infringement.  None of them are fit to be 1st year associates for a patent firm, let alone making patent policy. 

This case is about 35 USC 101 which reads
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Bilski clearly describes a useful process.  That is what the Justice should stick to in their ruling.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?