Samson Helfgott, a partner in the firm’s Intellectual Property Practice, was quoted in an article in the ABA Journal on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bilski vs. Kappos, which declined to impose sweeping new restrictions on the types of inventions that can be patented, instead reaffirming its traditional approach to patent eligibility. The Court’s majority opinion says that “petitioners’ claims are not patentable processes because they are attempts to patent abstract ideas.”

Mr. Helfgott joins a number of experts in criticism of the ruling and the confusion it is bound to create. “The decision was disappointing because there was not even a hint of a guideline for what is an abstract idea and what isn’t. It will mean more money for patent litigators. I’m looking forward to a whole host of new arguments over what is and isn’t an abstract idea,” he says. ("Standing By Its Flexible Standards," August 2010)