As far as patent matters are concerned, there is no real independent institution comparable to the Supreme Court in the United States over here - it is all a mess of various national and supranational institutions while the European Patent Office, which has been ignoring Art 52 (2) of the European Patent Convention for a decade is basically "controlled" by itself. The European Court of Justice or any other real, independent, unbiased Court does not have any say in the matter. Apart from substantial patent law reform by the legislator, the only one who really could make a change in all of this is the US Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has defined limits of patentability in the tryptichon of the Gottschalk/Parker/Diehr decisions which isn't that different from Art 52 EPC, but was distorted in the last decade by the USPTO and by Lower Courts, most importantly by State Street which tore down almost all meaningful limits to patentability.

The constitution e.g. talks about "useful arts" which for a long time was thought to be synonymous to "technical arts" (cf. the european discussion on "technical"). The Ex parte LUNDGREN decision of 2004 did away with that, saying that process inventions do not have to be in the technological arts in order to be patentable in the United States. In that sense, this decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) at the USPTO extended even further on State Street.

So one could argue that the BPAI misunderstood both State Street and the Constitution, i.e. it extended State Street in a way not permitted by the Constitution and that its view, therefore is unconstitutional.

State Street (by the Court of Appeals, not the Supreme Court) - like In re Iwahashi before - introduced an artificial distinction of mathematical algorithms and other, patentable (non-mathematical) algorithms. This distinction might seem interesting at first, but it just isn't true - it looks a bit like the Illinois Pi Bill that tried to legislate a "correct" value of pi.

Rober B. Laughlin, Physics Nobel Laureate in 1998 commented:

"The Court first ruled that algorithms or mathematical formulas, like laws of nature, cannot be patented.5 Then it ruled that computer software can be patented. Thus it ruled that software does not consist of algorithms or mathematical formulas! This revelation evokes howls of laughter from software engineers when they gratefully interrupt their late-night tasks of writing mathematical formulas to learn that “algorithm” is not a synonym for “computer program,” as they had previously thought."

--The Crime of Reason (2008), p. 57