TRACKING THE TRAJECTORY OF BUSINESS METHOD PATENTS By- Rupal Nayal
TRACKING THE TRAJECTORY OF BUSINESS
METHOD PATENTS
Authored By- Rupal Nayal
ABSTRACT:
Business Methods belong to a category
of patents whose inclusion in the patentable subject matter has been a focus
for a long time, with a divided verdict. Varying statutory provisions and
judicial pronouncements evolving newer criteria each time has fueled the debate
further. Since it is often considered to be a Siamese twin of software method,
this article endeavors to discuss different aspects related to pure business
methods in isolation of software patents as a combined discourse more often
than not tends to focus entirely on the perspective of the latter.
Keywords: business methods; patents; software;
innovation; incentive; technical
INTRODUCTION
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
refer to the bundle of rights that are conferred on an entity for the
protection of its creations that are intangible since they are a product of the
human mind. Possession of these tends to give businesses an edge over others.
They receive encouragement from governments since they’re considered to be of
public interest. However, their utility has been an intensely debated topic.
It has been advocated by the likes of
utilitarians as they are believed to give rise to innovation which is a parameter
for the progress of society. The only qualification is that they are subjected
to a temporal limitation in order to balance out the deadweight loss suffered
during the period of monopoly. Thus, the protection of intellectual assets is
seen as an incentive to drive advancement.
One of the quintessential varieties
of intellectual properties is patents. Patent protection is extended to certain
products and processes which fulfill three preliminary conditions. The first is
that it must be novel and not simply a modification of something that already
exists. Therefore, it is essential for the invention to advance from the
existing “prior art”. In addition to this, the invention should be such so as
not be to perceived as obvious to a person skilled and possessing knowledge in
that field.[1] Lastly,
it needs to have a utility for industrial application that can be
commercialized on a large scale for public benefit at large.[2]
A patent holder is granted the rights
of exclusivity, with respect to using, manufacturing, or selling the
technology. In most jurisdictions, the protection period is for 20 years after
which the invention is free to be used by the public, thereby eliminating the
capacity of the patent holder from charging monopolistic prices as well as
gate-keeping the technology. Even though the monopoly granted by patents is for
a shorter time than for copyrights, but the area that it encompasses is much
broader. Unlike copyrights, in case of patents, the protection is extended not
merely to how a certain idea is manifested but that specific idea as well.[3]
It seeks to be a solution to the
“appropriation problem”. If a firm that creates the product is unable to
recover the costs that were utilized during its creation by the reason of its
value being appropriated by the rival competitors, then this would be a blow to
such innovations in the future reducing the level to sub-optimal.[4]
Thus, it seems like that under the IPR regime, it is not only the necessity but
even the patent protection system which is the mother of invention.
A significant idea of protection in
the patent system is that it is the society that mainly benefits from new
inventions by not only bringing in new products but also giving impetus to
future innovations that can be derived from the research which builds on the
information that is publicly disclosed by the creators as a part of this
system.
PATENTABILITY EXCLUSION
There are some classes of subject
matter which have been kept out of the ambit of being patented, irrespective of
them satisfying the basic 3-criteria test. Such a mechanism seeks to prevent
the patent system from cornering all aspects of human life thereby increasing
non-quantifiable costs. It could lead to the practice of commodification of
almost anything and everything with the aim of creating economic growth but in
the process almost failing to serve the public welfare.[5]
In the USA, the legislation related
to Patent Act does not make an explicit mention but the jurisprudence
surrounding the patentability of subject matter developed by the courts over
the years has foreclosed the following areas: “Laws of nature or Scientific
principles, Abstract idea, Natural processes, and Natural products.”[6]
Indian Patents Act 1970, delineates
such inventions in Sections 3 and 4 of the act. Although these sections show
considerable overlap with the American tradition, however, it is certainly more
expansive. The statute goes ahead and specifically excludes business methods
patent (BMP) (2002 amendment) from the subject matter to be patented under “Section
3 What are not inventions-The following are not inventions within the
meaning of this Act- (k) a mathematical or business method or a computer
programme per se or algorithms”[7] “Business
Method” has been defined under the Business Method Patent Improvement Act[8] of
the U.S “as a method of:
1)
Administering,
managing, or operating an enterprise or organization or processing financial
data;
2)
Any
technique used in athletics, instruction or personal skills; and
3)
Any
computer-assisted implementation of 1) or 2) above”[9]
Thus, the Business Methods Patent
usually belongs to that category of patents that allow a company or economic
enterprise to monopolize a “way of doing business”, classified as a process
patent.
Although it can’t really say to be an
emerging category of IPR but its relevance has been increasing with the
increasing progression in technology that the world is witnessing every day and
especially since a major portion of commerce shifted to the internet. But it is
still one of those IPR categories that are not only lesser-known but also
difficult to grasp in the first brush which can most likely be attributed to
the lack of a universally agreed definition. Amazon.com, Inc. v.
Barnesandnoble.com, Inc. is an oft-cited case that sufficiently captures the
expression. In this case, Amazon sought to provide the users the ability to
purchase the products with a “single mouse click”, thus claiming the patent for
“1 click Buy button”.[10]
Another striking example would be the
case where Priceline.com claimed a patent for its "reverse auction"
service which involved an mechanism for conducting commercial transactions
electronically that let the customers to set their own amount for the goods and
services.[11]
In order to arrive at an
understanding of which side of patentability do business methods ought to be,
it is imperative to have a look at how they have fared in this regard in
various jurisdictions such as the U.S.A and Europe followed by the concerns
that they may raise.
Since India is standing at a
threshold of a booming E-Commerce revolution and aspires to reflect values
inherent in an information society based on a knowledge economy, it is
necessary to revisit the need for recognizing Business Method Patents.
THE LAND WHERE “ANYTHING UNDER THE
SUN MADE BY MAN”[12]
IS PATENTABLE
The United States of America has
gained this recognition since its widely worded Section 101 of the US Patent
Act, according to which “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful
process, the machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and
useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
conditions and requirements of this title.”[13]
Business Methods have gone through a checkered path with regard to being
patented.
One of the earliest cases that can be
traced to in this domain is Hotel Security Checking Co. v. Lorraine Co.[14]
where a patent was granted for Method and Means for Cash Registering and
Account checking. The method sought to prevent theft committed by the waiters
of the restaurants. But the patent was later invalidated since, in view of the
court, it lacked patentability[15]
since transacting business was not considered to be constituting an art. The
court stated that a mere abstract idea cannot be subject to patent no matter
the means. Thus, it has to be noted that this patent was not expressly struck
based because of the fact that it involved a business method.
State Street Bank and Trust Company v.
Signature Financial Group, Inc.[16]
This was the case that is often considered as the cradle of
business method patents since it made a significant breakthrough in putting the
exclusion of business method patentability to rest. In this case, the lower
court had given the ruling against the validity of the patent since it claimed
a mathematical algorithm and business method which exceptions were creation of
the Judiciary. The subject involved a computer-based system which was meant to
keep track of and document the flow of financial information by the
administrator enabling them to calculate in order to sustain the configuration
of a financial service called the “Hub & Spoke” system. This decision was
reversed when appealed to Federal Circuit. The reasoning was that the enduring
business method exception would amount to operating outside the legislative
intent laid in the statute. The court called for throwing out the exception for
being outdated. Thus, this decision opened a way forward to future business
method patents, giving them the status of statutory subject matter. This ruling
gave rise to a number of patent applications filed for claiming computer-based
business methods.[17]
Bilski
It started with In re Bilski[18]
which was concerned with a method that sought to hedge risks during trading
commodities and options but it was rejected by the Patent examiner and later by
the Board of Appeals. The Federal Circuit upheld this rejection and in the
process introduced a “machine or transformation test”. The Court stated that
“an inventive process would be considered the patentable subject matter only if
it fulfilled two conditions:
1) It is tied to a machine or apparatus
This decision was appealed in Bilski v. Kappos[20]
where the Supreme Court while upholding the rejection (patent refused on
the ground of it being an ‘abstract idea’) stated that although the above test
might be useful as an instrument for investigative analysis it could under no
condition be held as the only criteria for determining patentability. Further,
the Court refused to put ‘Business Methods’ per se under the scope of patent
protection since that would be in conflict with the intent of Congress when
they enacted a provision in Section 273 of the act for the defense of
infringement of claims regarding “methods of doing or conducting business.”
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International[21]
This case involved a patent for a scheme that sought to
diminish “settlement risk i.e., the risk that only one party to an agreed-upon financial exchange
will satisfy its obligation.”[22]
In the process, a computer system was to be used in order to enable financial
commitments between two parties. The Court refused to grant the patent on the
ground that “intermediated-settlement” was a long-known economic practice and
was thus an abstract idea while facilitation of a transaction through a
third-party was a “building block of the modern economy”. Additionally, there
was nothing in it which served to convert an abstract idea into something
eligible to be patented. However, there is still a degree of uncertainty since
the consistent application of such principles is still farfetched and in the
instances where the Courts have decided to follow the above framework, those
decisions have reflected inadequate reasoning.[23]
NAVIGATING THE EUROPEAN PARADIGM
Much like the Indian law, Europe makes a specific exclusion
with regard to business methods under Article 52(2)(c) of the European Patent
Convention, according to which, “schemes, rules, and methods for performing mental acts,
playing games or doing business, and programs for computers” shall not be
considered inventions in view of being new, involving an inventive step and
having an industrial application.[24]
However, there is no restriction on claiming patents for new and inventive
computer-implemented systems for the performance of business processes as long
as they meet the standard patentability criteria which include “technical
effect” and providing “technical contribution” to the art.[25]
Hitachi, Auction Method
This case was an appeal against denial of a patent which
involved a method claim for automated auction, an apparatus claim that enabled
the auction to run through a network along with a claim for a computer program.[26]
The Board of Appeal was of the opinion that the method claim constituted
alterations to an existing business practice whereby seeking to evade a
technical problem instead of solving it by “technical means”, thus could not
said to be having a “technical character”.
However, the decision worked to
establish that a business method could be taken out of the purview of Article
52 if it is shown to be attached to a “hardware” as long as it also passes the
criteria under Article 56 regarding inventive step. The test of
“problem-solution” is followed under this criterion. Under this approach,
firstly the prior art is considered after which a technical character having a
technical effect is determined. The patent examiners then formulate the objective
technical problem and ascertain the ability of the patent claim to resolve the
former.
(Estimating Sales Activity / Duns
Licensing Associates)
A research method was sought to be
claimed that could estimate sales activity as per a specific standard with the
help of reporting outlets where sales activities were correlated along with an
apparatus which was that maintained inventory which was founded on the results
flowing from the aforementioned method. The Board refused the method claim on
the ground of it being devoid of a technical character since it did not have
features of a technical system. It was of the view that merely processing
information belonging to the physical world was an established business
practice and an attempt to consider that as “technical” would make the
exception extended to business methods under Article 52 futile.[27]
The European system heavily relies on
the technical requirement, however, the line while deciding these matters is
often than not blurred. One of the primary reasons for this is rooted in the
lack of a definition of what really constitutes “technical”.[28]
EXAMINING THE SCENARIO IN INDIA
Even though there is an explicit bar
on patenting business methods in India, there has been a steady trend whereby
it is seen that inventions that are essentially business methods in substance
have been successful in getting patented.
Yahoo v. Controller and
Rediff is considered a landmark case in the Indian jurisprudence on Business
Methods where Yahoo intended to claim a patent for a service providing users a
method of selecting the most preferable space on the webpage to place the
advertisement through the process of auction. The Intellectual Property
Appellate Board refused to hold this invention to be patentable since they were
of the view that it constituted nothing more than conducting the business of
advertising via electronic means. Justice Prabha voiced the sentiment regarding
the patentability of business methods in the following words: “We must place
ourselves in 1998, to decide the patentability and what appears so easy and
familiar today was new then. Even if we go back in time to 1998 the nature of
the invention is still a method of doing business. That does not change. There
are huge innovations in the computers themselves, but the invention claimed is
not for the machine but for the method. From whichever point of time we look at
it, it still looks to be a business method.”[29]
In an empirical study[30]
conducted for inspecting the business method patents, it was found that Patent
No. 252951 was granted for a process which sought to govern and control the
financial obligations that often occur in the domain of post-paid facilities
offered by phone companies by the creditworthiness of the customer is
determined before-hand.[31]
Another patent worth mentioning was
granted to Punjab National Bank where the method related to analyzing the
previous financial records of the consumer which aids in calculating the credit
risk rating in order to provide an estimate about the impending projections for
the client.[32]
These were pure business methods
where they capitalized on well-known business practices since their primary aim
was to gain business efficiency and maximize profits. Apart from this, in the
context of globalization and the need for attracting FDI, there has been much
clamor for India to direct its IPR policy in favor of granting patents of
business methods.[33]
APPREHENSIONS SURROUNDING THE RISE OF
BUSINESS METHODS
In the era preceding the period when
business methods began to be recognized as a plausible category to be patented,
the business methods were flourishing without any protection.[34]
Another concern springs from the fact that since the patent applications are
shrouded in secrecy before being actually granted, the entrepreneurs who invest
money and sincere endeavors to start a business to be restricted from using the
business methods they might have developed after someone else gets a patent for
it rendering them subject to the requirement of getting into a licensing
agreement.[35]
Further, there is a possibility that the protection extended to particular
business methods might lengthen the monopolistic effects by the virtue of
network effects, beyond the statutory patent period.[36]
Lack of sufficient “prior art” makes
it hard for the examiners to test business methods against the established
triple patentable test. This can be best expressed in the words of Tim Berner
Lee who was of the view that, “Some just take a well-known process (like an
interlibrary loan or betting on a race) and do it in software. Others combine
well-known techniques in apparently arbitrary ways to no added effect- like
patenting going shopping in a striped automobile on a Thursday. They pass the
test of apparent novelty because there is no existing document describing exactly
such a process.”[37]
A sharp critique in the direction of
recognizing BMP comes from the commentators who believe that they have the
potential of creating an impediment in the path of innovation advancement
thereby rendering small and medium businesses to substantial financial and
legal challenges.[38]
Limiting access to business methods would put the information and knowledge
under a box, which would in effect stifle the free flow of the former among
researchers, endangering innovation.[39]
The proponents of competition laws
have also raised concerns regarding the anti-competitive effects that BMP are
likely to have which would amount to the abuse of IPR.[40]
This is because most of the small businessmen will would find themselves in a
precarious position, unable to compete, given the money, time, and expertise
that they may lack.[41]
When it comes to the domain of
cyberspace, Professor Lessig is even warier of BMP since almost every method of
conducting business on the internet is essentially embodied in technology,
thereby putting every internet method at the altar of patentability.[42]
Given the plethora of anxieties that
BMP raises it is indispensable to examine whether it fits into the very idea of
patents.
JUXTAPOSING PRO-PATENT ARGUMENTS ONTO
BUSINESS METHODS
While an “idea” is envisaged to be
expressed in a material form, business methods are usually inclined towards
utilizing information or data into producing a beneficial process of
undertaking financial transactions. Thus, it can be seen as being linked to a process
of decision-making. When seen in comparison to mechanical inventions or even a
process that ultimately leads to the production of a tangible result, the
business method is devoid of physical conclusiveness.[43]
One of the observers contends that
business methods contrast from the traditional idea of patents in the sense
that they are developed under the context of competitive concerns and the need
to be ahead rather than in a technical workshop.[44]
Irrespective of the above
divergences, for the sake of argument, even if we take BMPs to be a part of the
patent framework the next corollary would be to check if they can be justified
under the defenses offered to the critiques of the patent regime itself.
As far as providing an incentive to
innovate is concerned, it is crucial to be cognizant of the fact that many
other dynamics are likely to push the firms to develop new methods, the most
significant of them being the prospect of getting a competitive edge.[45]
The incentive theory may stand true
for patents in the field of pharmaceuticals since there are huge research and
development costs involved. When they make an endeavor to create a new drug,
they not only employ researchers for long periods of time but also research
laboratories as testing grounds for the experiments. Even the process of
applying to Food and Drug trials and waiting for the medicines to get an
approval to prove to be costly.
However, business methods are mostly
produced in the course of conducting business in order to enhance efficiency.
It does not need a separate block of labor dedicated to creating them. A firm
can effectively modify the newly created methods to its organization. The
imitating firms will require time to tailor the methods as per their needs,
thus giving the former a considerably larger period to enjoy its benefits.
The next proposed justification is
that BMP can serve to protect the work of small entrepreneurs from being
appropriated by bigger firms harming their market share.[46]
However, it has been observed that what really happens is quite the contrary.
If a small firm produces an invention the cost of not only obtaining but even
maintaining the patent would be coupled with the litigation costs that they
will incur in order to protect it from being appropriated by bigger companies.
And in a Business method protective regime, choosing not to patent the method
would make the method open to be patented by the latter which can afford all
the costs and thus ultimately depriving the smaller firms of accessing them.[47]
It needs to be recognized that the
business methods by their very nature defy the free-rider quandary since an
efficient business method being implemented by more number of firms will
subsequently lead to consumer welfare at large by maintaining adequate levels
of competition. The foundation of an effectual market is its capability to
convert a profitable commercial prospect into a vehicle that creates an
environment which takes care of not only the economic profit but adequately
addresses the deadweight loss as well thereby maximizing the surplus for
producer and consumer in the larger picture.”[48]
CONCLUSION
Taking into account the disquieting
consequences that business methods patentability could lead to especially in
the context of a developing country like India, the costs that would be
incurred seem far more than the benefits envisaged. However, the trend of
patents being granted in this domain points to the direction that the
statutorily carved exception is not being adhered to in practice and there are
ways to circumvent it by well-drafted claims.
Even the absence of a concise
definition has often led to the buck being inevitability passed to either the
Patent examiners or ultimately the Judiciary to interpret it in the face of
emerging innovations and newer technologies. As a result, the provision of
exclusion is found to be vulnerable to misuse and more importantly causes the
distress of falling to disuse. Any attempt to define a business method has to
be conscious of the fact that it cannot afford to be exhaustive because a
business method is inherently rooted in a mental process & human mind and a
definition that seems too rigid to be interpreted in the face of judicial
decisions and administrative guidelines would not only be impractical but also
counterproductive.[49]
However, given the exigencies of the
present times and the urge to harmonize the patent system with the U.S as is
often visualized, there is a need for an empirical research that should
demonstrate that removing business methods from public access into the
exclusive monopoly would be beneficial.[50]
Another alternative to be considered
in the event of being succumbed to the undeniable pressure of giving in the
patentability of business methods would be a sui generis approach[51]
as suggested by Larry A. DiMatteo and Robert E. Thomas. This would be a
category of patents with a reduced period of protection and offered to only
those where an extensive amount of investment has been sustained for its
development.
[1] The Patents Act, 1970 (Act 39 of
1970) s. 2 (ja)
[2] Richard A. Spinello,
"Intellectual property rights", Vol. 25 Issue 1, Library Hi Tech, 12
– 22, (2007)
[3] S Vaidhyanathan,
Intellectual Property: A Very Short Introduction 41, Oxford University Press,
(2017)
[4] K W. Dam, “The economic
underpinnings of patent law”, Vol. 23, Journal of Legal Studies, 247 (1994)
[5] Dana Remus Irwin, “Paradise Lost
in the Patent Law - Changing Visions of Technology in the Subject Matter
Inquiry”, Vol. 60 Florida Law Review, 775 (2008)
[6] Tun J Chiang, “The Rules and
Standards of Patentable Subject-Matter”, Vol. 6 Wisconsin Law Review, 1353-1414
(2010)
[7] Supra note 1
[8] Business Method
Patent Improvement Act of 2000, H.R 5364 106th Congress Available at https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/106/hr5364
Retrieved 10 November 2021.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239
F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
[11] J A. Berkowitz, “Business
Method Patents: Everybody Wants to Be a Millionaire”, Vol.609 Practicing Law
Institute 36 (2000).
[12] Diamond V. Chakrabarty, 1980 U.S
Lexis 112
[13] United States Code Title 35 –
Patents, Article 101
[14] 155 F. 298
(S.D.N.Y 1907)
[15] Pol S, Janodia MD, Jagadeesh PC,
Bhat KM, Udupa NJ, “Business Method Patents: A Primer”, Vol.1 Journal of Young
Pharmacists, 379-384 (2009)
[16] 525 U.S. 1093 (1999)
[17] Jason Taketa, “The Future of
Business Method Software Patents in the International Intellectual Property
System”, Vol.75 Southern California Law Review, 943 (2002)
[18] 88 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
[19] R. David Donoghue & Michael A.
Grill, “In Re Bilski: A Midpoint in the Evolution of Business Method Patents,”
Vol.7, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property 316 (2009).
[20]130 S. Ct. 3018 (2010)
[21] 2014 U.S Lexis 4303
[22] Ibid.
[23] Michelle M. Umberger, Danielle N. Scott,
“Chasing the white rabbit: Business method patents and the continued search for
clarity under Alice”, Perkins Coie LLP. Available at https://www.perkinscoie.com/en/news-insights/chasing-the-white-rabbit-business-method-patents-and-the.html,
Retrieved November 11, 2021
[24] Convention on the Grant of
European Patents (European Patent Convention) of 5 October 1973
[25] Robert J. Hart, Vol.7 “Business
Method Patents: Europe”, International Intellectual Property Law & Policy,
12 (2002)
[27] ECLI: EP:BA:2006: T015404.20061115
[28] Susan J. Marsnik & Robert E.
Thomas, “Drawing a Line in the Patent Subject-Matter Sands: Does Europe Provide
a Solution to the Software and Business Method Patent Problem”, Vol.34 Boston
College International & Comparative Law Review 227 (2011).
[29] Yahoo
Inc v. Assistant Controller of Patent & Design and Rediff, 2011 SCC OnLine
IPAB 106
[30] A Lath and S Bhardwaj, “Business
Method Patents: An Oxymoron?”, 6 NUJS Law Review 121 (2013)
[31] Ibid. Id at 139
[32] Ibid.
[33] Paras Khurana. India:
Business Method Patents. Intellectual Available at https://www.mondaq.com/india/patent/366752/business-method-patents
Retrieved 10 November 2021
[34] Robert Patrick Merges, John
Fitzgerald Duffy, Patent Law and Policy: Cases and Materials 14 Carolina Academic Press 2nd
edition (1997).
[35] William Krause, “Sweeping
the E-Commerce Patent Minefield: The Need for a Workable Business Method
Exception”, Vol.24 Seattle University Law Review 79 (2000).
[36] Anatoli Kalpakidou,
“Business Method Patents - Should They Survive in Europe”, Vol.13 International
Journal of Law and International Technology 243 (2005).
[37] Tim Berners-Lee with Mark
Fischetti, Weaving the Web: The original design and ultimate destiny of the
World Wide Web, by its inventor", New York Harper Collins Publishers 1st
edition, (1999)
[38] Supra note 36 at 253
[39] Rochelle Dreyfuss, "Are
Business Method Patents Bad for Business?" Vol.16(2) Santa Clara
Computer
& High Technology Law Journal, 263-280 (2000)
[40] CD Freedman, "Software
And Computer-Related Business Method Inventions: Must Europe Adopt American
Patent Culture?", Vol. 8(3) International Journal Of Law And Information
Technology, (2000)
[41] Supra Note 29
[42] Lawrence Lessig, “Patent
Poblems” The Standard, Jan. 21, 2000, Available at
http:/Avww.thestandard.com/articledisplay/0,1151,8999,00.html. Retrieved 10
November 2021
[43] V Chiappetta, “E-Commerce
and Equivalence: Defining the Proper Scope of Internet Patents Symposium:
Defining the Proper Scope of Internet Patents: If We Don 't Know Where We Want
to Go, We're Unlikely to Get There”, Vol.7 Michigan Telecommunications
&Technology Law Review 289 (2001)
[44] Leo J. Raskind, “The State
Street Bank Deision: The Bad Business of Unlimited Patent Protection for
Methods of Doing Business,” Vol.10
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal 61, 70-71
(1999).
[45] Roger D. Blair, Thomas F
Cotter Intellectual Property Economic And Legal Dimensions Of Rights And
Remedies, Cambridge University Press (2005)
[46] Andrew McKinney,
"Business Methodology Patents & E-Commerce Business Planning"
Available at http://Nsww.cafezine.com/printable
template.aspldeptid-=19&articleid=529, Retrieved 10 November 2021
[47] Supra note 34
[48] David S. Olson, “Taking the
Utilitarian Basis for Patent Law Seriously: The Case for Restricting Patentable
Subject Matter”, Vol.82 Temple Law Review 181 (2009)
[49] Nari Lee, “Patent Eligible Subject
Matter Reconfiguration and the Emergence of Proprietarian Norms - The Patent
Eligibility of Business Methods”, Vol.45 IDEA: The Intellectual Property Law
Review, 321 (2005)
[50] Brian P Biddenger,
“Limiting the Business Method Patent: A Comparison and Proposed Alignment of
European, Japanese and United States Patent Law”, Vol.69 Fordham Law Review
2523 (2001).
[51] Robert C. Bird and Subhash C.
Jain, et.al (eds.) The Global Challenge of Intellectual Property Rights, Edward
Elgar Publishing Limited (2008)