State Street Bank v. Signature Financial (149 F.3d 1368, 1998 Jul 23)
Decision Parameters
- Case: State Street Bank v. Signature Financial
- Type: [BUSINESS]
- Date: 1998 Jul 23
- Code: 149 F.3d 1368
- Court: Federal Circuit
- Vote: 3-0
- URL: casetext.com/case/state-st-bank-trust-v-sig-fin-g
- Patent: 5,193,056
Decisions It Cites
-
Hotel Security Checking v. Lorraine [160 F. 467, 1908]
Mackay Radio v. Radio Corp [306 U.S. 86, 1939]
Gottschalk v. Benson [409 U.S. 63, 1972]
Parker v. Flook [437 U.S. 584, 1978]
Diamond v. Chakrabarty [447 U.S. 303, 1980]
Diamond v. Diehr [450 U.S. 175, 1981]
In re Iwahashi [127 F. 2d 324, 1942]
In re Alappat [33 F.3d 1526, 1994]
Decisions That Cite It
-
Bilski v. Kappos [561 U.S. 593, 2010]
Rules & Quotes
[BUSINESS] {1} Today, we hold that the transformation of data, representing discrete dollar amounts, by a machine through a series of mathematical calculations into a final share price, constitutes a practical application of a mathematical algorithm, formula, or calculation, because it produces "a useful, concrete and tangible result" — a final share price momentarily fixed for recording and reporting purposes and even accepted and relied upon by regulatory authorities and in subsequent trades.{2} After Diehr and Chakrabarty, the Freeman-Walter-Abele test has little, if any, applicability to determining the presence of statutory subject matter. As we pointed out in Alappat, 33 F.3d at 1543, 31 USPQ2d at 1557, application of the test could be misleading, because a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter employing a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is patentable subject matter even though a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea would not, by itself, be entitled to such protection.
[BUSINESS] {3} We take this opportunity to lay this ill-conceived exception to rest. Since its inception, the "business method" exception has merely represented the application of some general, but no longer applicable legal principle, perhaps arising out of the "requirement for invention" — which was eliminated by Section 103. Since the 1952 Patent Act, business methods have been, and should have been, subject to the same legal requirements for patentability as applied to any other process or method. ... The business method exception has never been invoked by this court, or the CCPA, to deem an invention unpatentable. ... The business method exception has never been invoked by this court, or the CCPA, to deem an invention unpatentable. ... Even the case frequently cited as establishing the business method exception to statutory subject matter, Hotel Security Checking Co. v. Lorraine Co., 160 F. 467 (2d Cir. 1908), did not rely on the exception to strike the patent.