In re Ferguson

In re Ferguson
In re Ferguson
Court	United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Full case name	In re Lewis Ferguson, Darryl Costin and Scott C. Harris
Decided	March 6, 2009
Citation(s)	558 F.3d 1359; 90 U.S.P.Q.2d 1035
Case history
Prior history	Board of Patent Appeals
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting	Pauline Newman, Haldane Robert Mayer, Arthur J. Gajarsa
Case opinions
Majority	Gajarsa, joined by Mayer
Concur/dissent	Newman

In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009)^[1] is an early 2009 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, affirming a rejection of business method claims by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). One of the first post-Bilski decisions by a Federal Circuit panel, Ferguson confirms the breadth of the en banc Bilski opinion's rejection of the core holdings in State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc.^[2]

Ferguson was brought as a test case^[3] by patent attorney Scott Harris in what proved to be an unsuccessful effort to compel the PTO to accept as patent-eligible subject matter a "paradigm," which is a pattern for a business organization. Harris was also one of the named inventors in the patent application. Harris also unsuccessfully sought to persuade the PTO and Federal Circuit to adopt as a test of patent-eligibility ---- "Does the claimed subject matter require that the product or process has more than a scintilla of interaction with the real world in a specific way?"

^ In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
^ State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
^ NLJ, Federal Circuit Bars Patent for Business 'Paradigm', ("Harris said. 'I was trying to define a whole new set of claims -- a new style of claims.'"); Interview with Scott Harris ("I wanted to see if we could get the patent office to accept a wholly new form of claim adapted to the business method. I called this a paradigm....").

[1] In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

[2] State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

[3] NLJ, Federal Circuit Bars Patent for Business 'Paradigm', ("Harris said. 'I was trying to define a whole new set of claims -- a new style of claims.'"); Interview with Scott Harris ("I wanted to see if we could get the patent office to accept a wholly new form of claim adapted to the business method. I called this a paradigm....").

[1]

[2]

[3]