In its August issue, the ABA Journal takes a look at Bilski and, most importantly, what it means for lawyers.
在8月出版的ABA(美国律师协会——译者注)月刊里，杂志对Bilski案及该案对律师的意味着什么这一最为重要的议题进行了讨论。
The long-awaited ruling in Bilski v. Kappos was finally handed down on Monday, giving you all some 66 meaty pages to sink your teeth into.
经过了长久等待，Bilski v.Kappos案的判决终于在周一作出。 法院给了你们所有人厚厚的66页判决书来啃。
Bilski, the ABA Journal reports, continues the trend of recent Supreme Court patent decisions, which eschew bright-line tests in favor of flexible standards.
ABA月刊写道，Bilski案继续了最高法院近来专利判决的趋势，它有意避开明确的检验法，而亲睐灵活的标准。
In Bilski, the court not only rejected a categorical exclusion of business method patents, but also two tests for patentability created by the U.S. court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
在Bilski案中，法院非但拒绝完全排除商业方法专利，而且否定了由美国联邦巡回上诉法院(该院为审理专利商标上诉案件的专门法院——译者注)缔造的判定可专利性的两个检验法。
In Bilski, the court not only rejected a categorical exclusion of business method patents, but also two tests for patentability created by the U.S. court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
在Bilski案中，法院非但拒绝完全排除商业方法专利，而且否定了由美国联邦巡回上诉法院(该院为审理专利商标上诉案件的专门法院——译者注)缔造的判定可专利性的两个检验法。
应用推荐