Der Fall Bilski:
Umschwung in den USA?

U.S. Code, Title 35, §101. Inventions patentable

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, […].

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/101.html

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
State Street, Juli 1998:

[…] the transformation of data […] by a machine […] constitutes a practical application of a mathematical algorithm, formula, or calculation, because it produces “a useful, concrete and tangible result” […].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
State_Street_Bank_v._Signature_Financial_Group

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
Bilski, Oktober 2008:

The “useful, concrete and tangible result” test […]
should no longer be relied on.

Stattdessen:

Thus, the proper inquiry […] is not whether the process claim recites sufficient “physical steps,” but rather whether the claim meets the machine-or-transformation test. […]

A claimed process is surely patent-eligible under § 101 if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing.

… und das, obwohl die USA kein
Gegenstück zu Art. 52 EPÜ kennen!

http://endsoftpatents.org/
http://www.fsf.org/news/esp-bilski

http://www.epo.org/patents/appeals/eba-decisions/
referrals/pending/briefs.html
-->ACB des FFII, S. 31f

Was jetzt in der EU geschieht,
wird auch die USA beeinflussen.

--> Chance und Risiko