Business Methods Patent

<p><b >Business method patents</b>&nbsp;are a class of patents which disclose and&nbsp;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claim_(patent)" title="Claim (patent)" >claim</a>&nbsp;new&nbsp;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_doing_business" title="Methods of doing business" class="mw-redirect" >methods of doing business</a>. This includes new types of&nbsp;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_commerce" title="Electronic commerce" class="mw-redirect" >e-commerce</a>, insurance, banking,&nbsp;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax" title="Tax" >tax compliance</a>&nbsp;etc. Business method patents are a relatively new species of patent and there have been several reviews investigating the appropriateness of patenting business methods. Nonetheless, they have become important assets for both independent inventors and major corporations.<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_method_patent#cite_note-1" >[1]</a></sup>

<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference" >&nbsp;</sup>

For many years, the USPTO took the position that "methods of doing business" were not patentable. With the emergence in the 1980 and 1990s of patent applications on internet or computer enabled methods of doing commerce, however, USPTO found that it was no longer practical to determine if a particular computer implemented invention was a technological invention or a business invention. Consequently they took the position that examiners would not have to determine if a claimed invention was a method of doing business or not. They would determine patentability based on the same statutory requirements as any other invention.<sup id="cite_ref-8" class="reference" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_method_patent#cite_note-8" >[8]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-9" class="reference" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_method_patent#cite_note-9" >[9]</a></sup>

<sup id="cite_ref-9" class="reference" >&nbsp;</sup>

1. <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070929091155/http://www.insurancenetworking.com/protected/article.cfm?articleId=3505">http://web.archive.org/web/20070929091155/http://www.insurancenetworking.com/protected/article.cfm?articleId=3505</a>
   

&nbsp;</p>

<ol class="references" >

<li id="cite_note-8" ><b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_method_patent#cite_ref-8" ><br class="Apple-interchange-newline" />

8</a> </b>&nbsp;<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.law.emory.edu/fedcircuit/july98/96-1327.wpd.html" >State Street Bank v. Signature Financial, decided July 23, 1998</a>, citing the then current<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manual_of_Patent_Examining_Procedure" title="Manual of Patent Examining Procedure" >MPEP</a>&nbsp;Sec. 706.03(a) (1994)</li>

<li id="cite_note-9" >9 <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/2106.html" >"Section 2106, Patentable Subject Matter – Computer-Related"</a>.&nbsp;<i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manual_of_Patent_Examining_Procedure" title="Manual of Patent Examining Procedure" >MPEP</a></i>. Seventh Edition (July 1998).</li>

</ol>

<p>&nbsp;</p>