This article examines issues of the patent eligibility of business methods in the United States. The patent eligibility of business methods has continued to generate fierce debates in the United State. Controversies over the patent subject matter have been raised again after the 2008 In re Bilski decision. The Federal Circuit held in that case that the “machine-or-transformation test” was the sole test in deciding whether a method is a patentable process. Latter in Bilski v. Kappo (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a categorical exclusion of business method patents. In particular, the Supreme Court noted that the “machine-or-transformation test” was not the sole test for patent-eligible subject matter. The Supreme Court, however, did not introduce a nuanced test on the patentability of business method or process invention. After critically reviewing the Bilski case (including the Federal Circuit’s opinion and the Supreme Court’s majority and concurring opinions) and other judicial and commentary opinions, the author argues that, while the Supreme Court rejected a categorical exclusion of business method patents, a change of this position is not impossible when the Supreme Court revisits this issue in the recent future. While most members of the U.S. IP community expect the Supreme Court to articulate a nuanced test, the author contends that Congress should take the responsibility to establish a uniform framework for patent-eligible subject matter. Cases subsequent to Bilski suggest that even after the Supreme Court’s Bilski decision, the Federal Circuit continued to use its “machine-or-transformation test.” As such, a “pure” business method (meaning that it does not involve any machine or transformation) may not be patented if the “machine-or-transformation test” still prevails in American patent law. In addition, the author argues that the Federal Circuit should further shape the two-prong “machine-or-transformation test” to make it more precise and predictable. Comparatively, Taiwan’s patent law recognizes business method’s patentability only if the business method is operated by a computer software. The author argues that Taiwan’s approach to treating business method patents is likely to be more restrictive than that in the United States. Hence, a revision of this approach is advisable in light of the development of business method patent law in the United States.