The Bottom-Line of Bilski

Gerard Magliocca

Gerard N. Magliocca is the Samuel R. Rosen Professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. Professor Magliocca is the author of three books and over twenty articles on constitutional law and intellectual property. He received his undergraduate degree from Stanford, his law degree from Yale, and joined the faculty after two years as an attorney at Covington and Burling and one year as a law clerk for Judge Guido Calabresi on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Professor Magliocca has received the Best New Professor Award and the Black Cane (Most Outstanding Professor) from the student body, and in 2008 held the Fulbright-Dow Distinguished Research Chair of the Roosevelt Study Center in Middelburg, The Netherlands. He was elected to the American Law Institute (ALI) in 2013.

You may also like...

1 Response

  1. TJ says:

    I think there are a fair number of clues that Stevens lost his majority. Kennedy’s opinion is short, and goes to pains to emphasize that it is not saying anything at all. For every sentence that seems to say something (e.g. “Section 101 similarly precludes the broad contention that the term “process” categorically excludes business methods.”) there is an equal and opposite sentence that seems to negate its effect (“while §273 appears to leave open the possibility of some business method patents, it does not suggest broad patentability of such claimed inventions”). Second, Stevens’ opinion has a much longer recitation of facts than Kennedy’s. Third, pretty much everyone had forecast a Stevens opinion based on the Court’s opinion-assignment practices.