Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
The case under analysis is between Bilski and Kappos. Kappos is being represented by the secretary of commerce for intellectual property and director. The appellant was seeking justice concerning an invention that he had presented to the patent and trade mark office for registration. His registration was denied due to what the office termed as not fulfilling the necessary requirements under the patents act.
The state in which the case originated
The case originated from the United States of America where it was presented in a number of federal courts before it was appealed. In al the court hearings, the innovation was found to be invalid and not in accordance with the patents registration requirements.
How long the case had been in the litigation process?
The case between Bernard L. Bilski and Rand Warsaw was filed on 10th April 1997 and decided on 28th June 2010. This basically means that the case had been under litigation for a period of thirteen years.
Jurisdiction in relation to this case
The jurisdiction that was behind this case was mainly the concern that the patent regi9stragtion department had towards the stakeholders of the invention. They expressed their fear on the fact that the invention may not realize the intended results. This was to ensure that the innovators do not use any manipulative ways to lure their potential clients just incase they come to realize how unworkable it is.
The relationship between the court system, litigation process, and jurisdiction
The procedures that were followed by the court and during the litigation and jurisdiction process were both aimed at funding a just way to rule the case. They were more concerned about the ultimate beneficiaries of the invention rather than the individuals that cane up with the decision. All necessary measures had to be taken to ensure that the clients of the innovation do not suffer loss when it is realized that the inventions will not work. It was also a procedure that was used to challenge the inventors about the validity of their invention. This was also to discourage any person from simply coining anything without first testing it for validity.
Facts
The case involves a petitioner that was seeking patent for an invention that was to help buyers and sellers to minimize on price fluctuation. The technical device was basically designed for the energy sector where the users will be protected against the risk of price changes.
Issue
The issue that was raised here is that the patent examiner rejected the application that was presented. The reason that was given for the rejection is that the invention was not applicable for use. It mainly solved a certain mathematical problem and could not be used on any apparatus. The case was forwarded to the board of patent appeals which affirmed it. The issue was to be verified under the patent act 35 U. S. C. §101 to find out if the invention was valid or not.
Ruling
Justice Kennedy who was in charge of the rulings ruled out that the invention was not eligible for a patent. The judge gave the courts opinion concerning the ruling which was made in accordance to the patents act.
Analysis
Section 101 of the patents act identifies some of the inventions that are eligible for registration of a patent. From the categories that were identified and laid down, it was clear that the invention in question was not eligible for a patent. The conditions must be strictly followed with only three exceptions which include; abstract ideas, physical phenomena and the laws of nature. The law on patents generally requires that for a patent to be registered, then it has to be new in the market and also its usefulness approved (Meiners, et al, 2006). It was hence identified that the invention in question was a solution to the problem that was already there and that it may not necessarily be useful to the energy sector.
Minority Rationale
The petitioner, in seeking for a patent for his invention thought it wise to register it so as to avoid any possibilities of it being duplicated. He may have done a research and verified that the idea was marketable and would be useful in the energy sector. The court had ruled that the invention had not been developed to guarantee the users of its significance. Even though the invention was dismissed as not fulfilling the eligibility requirements, the petitioner followed the right procedure which would prevent him from engaging in an activity that may not bear any fruits.
Comments
The law is usually made to protect citizens from any unjust practices. There are a lot of inventions that are being made in the field of technology, some whose purpose may not be verified. When an invention has to be registered, the patents department has to make sure that it will benefit its users (Meiners, et al, 2006). This will prevent any body that may come up with manipulative ideas and make people to spend money for no reason. The patent department also needs to ensure that the invention is not against any legal and moral requirements of the society.
Reference
Meiners, R.E., Ringleb, A.H., & Edwards, F. L. (2006). The legal environment of business (9th ed.). Mason, Ohio: Thomson.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.