In re Ferguson
In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009) 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.
| 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 |
Ferguson was brought as a test case 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?"