Legal Opinion · Concurrence

In Re Bilski

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Decided October 30, 2008No. 2007-1130Published

1Concurrence

DYK, Circuit Judge, with whom LINN, Circuit Judge,

joins, concurring.

While I fully join the majority opinion, I write separately to respond to the claim in the two dissents that the majority’s opinion is not grounded in the statute, but rather “usurps the legislative role.”1 In fact, the unpatentability of processes not involving manufactures, machines, or compositions of matter has been firmly embedded in the statute since the time of the Patent Act of 1793, ch. 11, 1 Stat. 318 (1793). It is our dissenting colleagues who would legislate by expanding patentable subject matter far beyond what…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
  3. Schmuck v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. Sprague v. Ticonic National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
  5. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation EnterprisesSupreme Court of the United States · 1985

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API