In 2007, Bilsky appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In 20081October 30 10, the court still upheld the rejection. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit developed the logic of the United States Supreme Court in Diehr case and Benson case, holding that if a patent is granted to a basic principle, the patent will monopolize the innovation of the basic principle in all uses, which will unduly hinder rather than promote the innovation ability of the whole society, which violates the legislative purpose of American patent law: to promote the progress of science and useful technology. Therefore, only inventions that apply the basic principle to a specific purpose can be granted a patent right, because this will not hinder other inventions that apply the principle. In this case, the method of avoiding transaction risk is essentially a mathematical algorithm using hedging principle. If this method is patented, it will monopolize all possible applications of this mathematical algorithm in the field of risk management, so this method is not patentable. The court further improved the patentability principle of the test method flow:
Whether (1) is combined with a specific machine or device, or (2) whether a substance is transformed into another state or substance, if any of the above conditions are met, the method belongs to the patentable subject specified in Article 10 1 of the Patent Law. In other words, a method must act on a specific device, or act on a specific substance and change its form, in order to belong to the object protected by the patent law. This decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is a major reversal of the decision of State Street Bank, which has greatly shocked the patent field and the commercial field. There are deep-seated practical reasons behind this judgment.
On June 28th, 20 10, the most controversial judgment of this century was finally announced, with a slight advantage of five votes to four votes, keeping the business method in the patentable theme. The judgment reinterprets the definition of method in the patent law of the United States, and holds that Article 273 (b)( 1) of the patent law stipulates the right of defense against patent infringement in the prior art, in which "method" includes "method of developing or engaging in business", so the Supreme Court confirmed that "business method" is also a method in the sense of patent law, but as far as the test of "machine or transformation" is concerned, In this case, the Supreme Court held that Bilsky's risk avoidance method is a mathematical algorithm, which is a subject that cannot be patented. Although this judgment maintained the judgment result of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, it subverted the judgment basis of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in the judgment. The Supreme Court's decision did not further declare that the business method is not patentable on the basis of the "machine or transformation" test, but took a step back, affirmed the legal status of the business method patent, and overturned the "machine or transformation" test as the only criterion for judging patentability.