Talk:State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc.

Untitled

Ruling stated that the section 103a statutory requirement on non-obviousness overruled common law exception. Business method exception was a common law exception, and went away with passage of Ch. 35. The "never existed" claim in the article was secondary.

Paragraph removed

I've removed the following paragraph as I really don't see how to rewrite it in an NPOV way:

It may be worth noting that patents have struggled with every new class of technology. However, by definition, each and every patent covers something that has never been covered by a patent before. The patent system is designed to adapt to new types of technology as they arise. In this vein, the Federal Circuit appears to be very cautious in carving out new categories of excluded technology.

If we want to cover this, we could try to find some law review articles on the subject or some such, although it belongs in Business method patent as much as here, perhaps. Kingdon 23:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, Kingdon. PraeceptorIP (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Basically it is a fact that the Federal Circuit always adopted the view that there is no room for other judicially-created exclusions except the three age-old exceptions: abstract ideas, natural phenomena and laws of nature. Documentation: Diamond v. Chakrabarty decision. Rbakels (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Assignment of Patent Issue

Signature was the assignee of the '056 patent, so it was not "granted" to Signature as the article says in the overview. Rather it was granted to R. Todd Boes, the inventor, on 9 March 1993, and Signature was the named assignee on the issued '056 patent. State Street, 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Minor aspect, but this important to recognize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeWitt (talk • contribs) 22:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

State Street no longer good law

A clear majority of the Supreme Court (the Stevens four plus Scalia joining with Breyer's concurrence) rejected the useful, concrete, tangible result test, saying in effect that it set the bar too low. 121a0012 (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The text should be updated it does not take into account the SC Bilski decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.8.72.90 (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The text should only refer to In re Bilski and Bilski v. Kappos and not discuss these decisions in any level of detail, especially now that the Supreme Court has spoken. Rbakels (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

1998 or 1999? Or were there two cases?

There are a lot of webpages about a "State Street v. Signature" case, using the citation:

• (149 F.3d 1368, 1374 n. 6 (Fed. Cir.) 1999)

Is that a second way to cite this case? (Maybe it's when the decision was published in the Federal Register?)

Or was there a second case with these two companies? (Retrial?) Gronky (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)