Abstract
The case of State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., which extended patent protection to a computerized financial method, was regarded by many as a revolutionary expansion of patentable subject matter. The author, however, argues that this notion is overstated. The author explains that the State Street Bank decision will be of little consequence because the business exception was a myth in the first place. The author reasons that courts often cited other bars to patentability when denying business methods protection. Furthermore, the author argues that the recent relaxation of the patentability requirements of computer related inventions would likely include the business method exception, rendering any change created by State Street Bank meaningless. Finally, the author asserts that claims for Internet business models will still be rejected by the PTO and courts under the patentability requirements of the Patent Act.
Repository Citation
William D. Wiese,
Death of a Myth: The Patenting of Internet Business Models after State Street Bank,
4 Marq. Intellectual Property L. Rev. 17
(2000).
Available at: https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/iplr/vol4/iss1/2