Scott Doyle (Washington, D.C.-Litigation), a Shearman & Sterling partner and chair of the firm's Intellectual Property Litigation Practice, was quoted in Law 360 in connection with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bilski v. Kappos. This was a very closely watched case that many had hoped would resolve the question of the patentability of business methods. The Bilski decision denied a patent to the inventors of a mathematical model that assists commodity traders to hedge risks.

The justices unanimously agreed with the appeals court that the patent application at issue in Bilski should have been rejected, as it represented an impermissible attempt to patent an abstract idea. While the Bilski decision gave no clear guidelines as to what types of business methods could qualify for protection under patent laws, the court's conservative majority said that business methods were not categorically excluded from patent protection. On this point, Doyle commented in a June 28 Law 360 article, titled "IP Lawyers React To Bilski's Long-Awaited Arrival," that "[a]s the Supreme Court is apt to do on patent matters, the court tells the Federal Circuit that it is wrong in Bilski to tout its test for determining patent eligible subject matter as the only game in town, but the court punts on providing the legal and business community much guidance for determining patentability of business method patents."