DOCSLIB.ORG

Patentable Subject Matter in the US: Past, Present and Future

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Patentable Subject Matter in the US: Past, Present and Future Management report Patentable subject matter in the US: past, present and future years, the United States Patent and The landmark Bilski decision has Trademark Office (USPTO) has been flooded left commentators divided as to the with patent applications from technology fate of business method and start-ups rushing to patent their core business models, from traditional brick- software patents in the United and-mortar entities recognising new patent States: some believe they will be asset opportunities to financial services harder to obtain and enforce, while firms seeking to protect profitable business others view the ruling as schemes, to independent inventors and confirmation of their viability patent holding companies seeking lucrative licensing opportunities. Many of these entities conversely faced increased exposure By Christopher Hughes and Daniel to patent infringement allegations and have Melman, Cadwalader, Wickersham & used these patents in a defensive mode. Taft LLP, New York The stunning rise in the number of business method patents in the United Over the past decade, the United States has States and the concomitant increase in seen a dramatic increase in the number of patent litigation also led to a vigorous early filings for business method patents relating debate over the ability of the USPTO, with to e-commerce, insurance, financial services its limited resources (eg, adequate sources and the like. They, like software patents in of prior art to search and knowledgeable general, have become important and valuable examiners), to examine the growing volume IP assets. This increase in business method of business method patent applications. In patents in particular may be attributable to addition, courts had not provided a clear the confluence of technological advances in standard for determining which types of communications and the timing of an discovery may or may not be patented; nor important court decision. had Congress clearly articulated its views as First, the rise of the Internet as a viable to the boundaries of patentable business – indeed, ubiquitous – portal for method and software inventions. Many conducting business, and the availability of patent practitioners and business executives increasingly more powerful and affordable had criticised the USPTO and the courts for computer technology, have generated new failing adequately to police business method and creative opportunities to facilitate patents and for unduly expanding the scope business activities with great economic of patent-eligible subject matter. benefits; many say this has ushered a new information and electronic age economy. Statutory and case law evolution Second, while methods of doing business The relevant statutory framework in the historically were not considered patentable, United States under which patent eligibility in 1998 the United States Court of Appeals is determined is set out in the Patent Act. for the Federal Circuit – which has exclusive Specifically, “whoever invents or discovers first-instance appellate jurisdiction over any new and useful process, machine, patent cases from the lower federal trial manufacture, or any new and useful courts – declared that business methods improvement thereof, may obtain a patent could indeed be patented. In the intervening therefor, subject to the conditions and www.iam-magazine.com Intellectual Asset Management May/June 2009 97 Co-published editorial requirements of this title”. [Title 35 USC § monitoring of process variables or the 101]. Thus, while a patentable invention means of setting off or adjusting an alarm. must have utility and be new and non- Rather, the patented method was simply a obvious under US law, a threshold barrier formula or algorithm for computing an exists which permits only the patenting of updated alarm limit. The court noted that particular subject matter, namely: (1) although an inventive application of a processes; (2) machines; (3) manufactures; mathematical algorithm or principle may be and (4) compositions of matter. With regard patented, patentability depends on the to process patent eligibility – which “inventive concept in its application”. generally applies to business method and In Diamond v Diehr [450 US 175 (1981)], software patents – the Patent Act gives a the Supreme Court considered the patent rather general definition of “process” as a eligibility of a process for curing synthetic “process, art, or method, and includes a new rubber products in which temperature use of a known process, machine, readings were taken and a computer using a manufacture, composition of matter, or well-known mathematical algorithm material”. [Title 35 USC § 100(b)]. Although calculated the cure time. The court the language of the statute appears to define concluded that although several steps in the a broad scope of patent-eligible subject process involved the use of mathematical matter, a number of judicially established algorithms, the method as a whole was limits, such as a prohibition against patentable because it involved the patenting laws of nature, physical transformation of an object. Notably, the phenomena and abstract ideas, have court stated that “[a] claim drawn to subject circumscribed its bounds. [Diamond v matter otherwise statutory does not become Chakrabarty, 447 US 303 (1980)]. nonstatutory simply because it uses a At the dawn of the information age, the mathematical formula, computer program, US Supreme Court decided three cases or digital computer”. Instead, “when a claim addressing the patent eligibility of containing a mathematical formula computer-related processes involving implements or applies that formula in a mathematical algorithms. First, in Gottschalk structure or process which, when v Benson [409 US 63 (1972)], the Supreme considered as a whole, is performing a Court considered a process for converting function which the patent laws were binary-coded decimal numerals into binary designed to protect (e.g., transforming or numbers (which could be carried out on a reducing an article to a different state or general purpose computer). The court thing), then the claim satisfies the concluded that such a process could not be requirements of [the Patent Act]”. In an patented because it constituted an abstract attempt to provide guidance in this area, idea, noting that the conversion process and distill its prior decisions, the Diehr could be performed mentally using a court announced that the “[t]ransformation mathematical table. In the court’s view, and reduction of an article to a different allowing such a patent would effectively state or thing is the clue to the patentability foreclose all uses of the mathematical of a process claim that does not include formula or algorithm at issue. The court particular machines”. explained that “[p]henomena of nature, In one other Supreme Court case of note though just discovered, mental processes, [Diamond v Chakrabarty, 447 US 303 (1980)], and abstract intellectual concepts are not although not directly addressing the patentable, as they are the basic tools of boundaries of process patents, the court scientific and technological work”. [Id at 67]. stated that “Congress intended statutory In the next case, Parker v Flook [437 US subject matter to include anything under the 584 (1978)], the Supreme Court was asked to sun that is made by man”. Following this determine whether a method of computing Supreme Court statement, and considering certain alarm limits in connection with a the broad statutory language of the Patent catalytic chemical conversion process could Act, US courts slowly expanded the scope of be patented. The only difference between patent-eligible process subject matter. the patented method and prior known In the seminal case of State Street Bank processes was the use of a mathematical & Trust Co v Signature Financial Group, Inc formula to calculate the alarm limits. The [149 F 3d 1368 (Fed Cir 1998], the Federal court decided that the method was not Circuit analysed the patentability of a data patentable because it did not include the use processing system for implementing an of any specific machine, did not explain how investment structure. The patent involved a to select appropriate margins of safety and computer system that received various contained no explanation relating to the inputs of financial information and then chemical processes being used, the performed certain calculations for managing 98 Intellectual Asset Management May/June 2009 www.iam-magazine.com Management report a financial portfolio. The Federal Circuit Federal Circuit, the machine-or- decided that the claimed system was transformation test ensures that a method patentable and, using broad language to patent is tied to a particular application of a explain the permissible scope of patentable fundamental principle or idea rather than subject matter, stated that “the mere fact the principle or idea itself. that a claimed invention involves inputting The Federal Circuit characterised the numbers, calculating numbers, outputting patent at issue in Bilski as a “non- numbers, and storing numbers, in and of transformative process that encompasses a itself, would not render it [unpatentable], purely mental process of performing unless, of course, its operation does not requisite mathematical calculations without produce a useful, concrete and tangible the aid of a computer or any other device, result”. Interestingly, although the patent mentally identifying those transactions that claim at issue explicitly recited
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Patent Law: a Handbook for Congress
    Patent Law: A Handbook for Congress September 16, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46525 SUMMARY R46525 Patent Law: A Handbook for Congress September 16, 2020 A patent gives its owner the exclusive right to make, use, import, sell, or offer for sale the invention covered by the patent. The patent system has long been viewed as important to Kevin T. Richards encouraging American innovation by providing an incentive for inventors to create. Without a Legislative Attorney patent system, the reasoning goes, there would be little incentive for invention because anyone could freely copy the inventor’s innovation. Congressional action in recent years has underscored the importance of the patent system, including a major revision to the patent laws in 2011 in the form of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. Congress has also demonstrated an interest in patents and pharmaceutical pricing; the types of inventions that may be patented (also referred to as “patentable subject matter”); and the potential impact of patents on a vaccine for COVID-19. As patent law continues to be an area of congressional interest, this report provides background and descriptions of several key patent law doctrines. The report first describes the various parts of a patent, including the specification (which describes the invention) and the claims (which set out the legal boundaries of the patent owner’s exclusive rights). Next, the report provides detail on the basic doctrines governing patentability, enforcement, and patent validity. For patentability, the report details the various requirements that must be met before a patent is allowed to issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Life Sciences & Biotechnology Legal Bulletin
    ISSUE 29 | FEBRUARY 16, 2012 LIFE SCIENCES & BIOTECHNOLOGY LEGAL BULLETIN SCIENCE • TECHNOLOGY ENGINEERING • ENERGY PHARMACEUTICAL CONTENTS IP NEWS IP News USPTO Proposes New Rules of Trial and Appellate Practice Under AIA ...........1 USPTO Proposes New Rules of Trial and Appellate Practice Under AIA Investor News The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued proposed rules of Massachusetts Biotech Adds $6.3 Million practice to implement sections of the America Invents Act (AIA) that provide Targeted to Stem Cell Reagents .........2 for trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and address judicial review of Biopharmaceutical Secures $2.2 Million to Develop Pancreatic Cancer Vaccine ...2 board decisions. Comments are requested by April 9, 2012. Business Climate According to USPTO’s notice, “the proposed rules would provide a consolidated Life Sciences Startups Generate More Capital in 2011, Biotech Job Ads Down set of rules relating to Board trial practice for inter partes review, post-grant Slightly in Q4 ...........................2 review, derivation proceedings, and the transitional program for covered Companion Diagnostics in Personalized business method patents by adding a new part 42 including a new subpart A Medicine Facing Explosive Growth ......3 to title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The proposed rules would also Indian Official Calls for Passage of Biotech Regulatory Legislation and provide a consolidated set of rules to implement the provisions of the Leahy- Increased VC Funding. 3 Smith America Invents Act related to seeking judicial review of Board decisions Legislative and Regulatory Developments by adding a new part 90 to title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations.” Separate FDA Issues Draft Biosimilars Guidance, rulemakings address proposed rules specific to inter partes review, post-grant Gaps Leave Practitioners Wondering ....4 review, the transitional program for covered business method patents, and Pay-for-Delay Deals and Biologics’ Exclusivity Period Part of President’s derivation proceedings.
    [Show full text]
  • Patentable Software: Analyzing Alice Under a Law-And-Economics Framework and Proposing a New Approach to Software Claims
    THIS VERSION MAY CONTAIN INACCURATE OR INCOMPLETE PAGE NUMBERS. PLEASE CONSULT THE PRINT OR ONLINE DATABASE VERSIONS FOR THE PROPER CITATION INFORMATION. NOTE PATENTABLE SOFTWARE: ANALYZING ALICE UNDER A LAW-AND-ECONOMICS FRAMEWORK AND PROPOSING A NEW APPROACH TO SOFTWARE CLAIMS Christian R. Ruiz I. INTRODUCTION Software is a pervasive component in modern inventions, and companies are interested in using patents to protect software. By the early 1990s, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”) established that software was patentable.1 This article analyzes the discernable contours of what falls within patentable subject matter regarding software technology in view of Alice v. CLS Bank2 and its precedent. This note also applies policy arguments and a cost-benefit analysis to argue what patent doctrine should dictate regarding the patentability of software. Today, after Alice, what may constitute a patentable software claim is not en- tirely clear. Alice made it harder to patent software technology.3 The majority opinion in Alice indicates that attaching an abstract method to a computer, which is a physical machine, is not enough to render a claim patentable.4 Further, the Supreme Court (the “Court”) subjected patent claims containing software ele- ments to a higher scrutiny than the scrutiny used for patent claims that do not 1 See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192-93 (1981) (affirming the Federal Circuit de- cision that a claim for technology including computer software is patent eligible); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (finding that a memory containing a data structure should be considered patentable subject matter); State St.
    [Show full text]
  • Can I Challenge My Competitor's Patent?
    Check out Derek Fahey's new firm's website! CLICK HERE Can I Challenge My Competitor’s Patent? Yes, you can challenge a patent or patent publication. Before challenging a patent or patent publication, an analysis should be conducted by a registered patent attorney to determine if challenging a patent or patent publication is necessary, and to evaluate the legal grounds for challenging the patent or patent publication. As a registered patent attorney, I evaluate patents and patent applications to determine the risk of developing competing goods. Below are three important questions that must be answered by a registered patent attorney to evaluate the risk of competing against a patented good. 1. Does a particular good infringe on a patent? Typically, a registered patent attorney will conduct a “freedom to operate” opinion to determine if a business owner can commercialize a particular good without infringing on another’s patent. First, a patent attorney will determine if the patent is enforceable. Next, a patent attorney will perform an infringement analysis to determine if a particular good infringes on any of a patent’s claims. To perform an infringement analysis of a patent and a possibly infringing product, first, the patent’s scope must be analyzed. Second, the patent’s claim terms must be interrupted using the specification, prosecution history and extrinsic evidence to understand and construe the meaning of the claim terms. After the claim terms have been construed, then the elements of a particular good must be analyzed to determine if the particular good practices each and every claim element taught by a patent’s claim.
    [Show full text]
  • NTP V. RIM: the Diverging Law Between System and Method Claim Infringement
    The University of New Hampshire Law Review Volume 5 Number 2 Pierce Law Review Article 7 January 2007 NTP v. RIM: The Diverging Law Between System and Method Claim Infringement Stephen P. Cole Franklin Pierce Law Center, Concord, NH Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/unh_lr Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Repository Citation Stephen P. Cole, NTP v. RIM: The Diverging Law Between System and Method Claim Infringement, 5 Pierce L. Rev. 347 (2007), available at http://scholars.unh.edu/unh_lr/vol5/iss2/7 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by the University of New Hampshire – Franklin Pierce School of Law at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in The University of New Hampshire Law Review by an authorized editor of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NTP v. RIM: The Diverging Law Between System and Method Claim Infringement STEPHEN P. COLE* I. INTRODUCTION Almost thirty years after the landmark decision of Decca Ltd. v. United States,1 the Federal Circuit had an opportunity to reevaluate the extraterri- torial limits of U.S. patent law in NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.2 After withdrawing its initial opinion (“NTP I”) and issuing a second opin- ion (“NTP II”), the court held that a system having a component located outside U.S. jurisdiction could be subject to U.S. patent law.3 The court held as a matter of law, however, that a process in which a step is per- formed outside U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Business Method Patents and Patent Floods
    Washington University Journal of Law & Policy Volume 8 Symposium on Intellectual Property, Digital Technology & Electronic Commerce January 2002 Business Method Patents and Patent Floods Michael J. Meurer Boston University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael J. Meurer, Business Method Patents and Patent Floods, 8 WASH. U. J. L. & POL’Y 309 (2002), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol8/iss1/12 This Patents and Bioinformatics - Essay is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Journal of Law & Policy by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Business Method Patents and Patent Floods Michael J. Meurer* “[O]ne of the great inventions of our times, the diaper service [is not patentable].”1 Giles S. Rich “We take this opportunity to lay this ill-conceived exception to rest.”2 Giles S. Rich I. INTRODUCTION The decline of the business method exception to patentability will increase the frequency of patent floods. By patent flood, I mean a dramatic jump in the number of patents filed covering a specific class of inventions, as we now observe in e-commerce.3 Floods are likely to become more frequent as future entrepreneurs respond to the appearance of a new market with a spate of business method patent applications claiming new methods tailored to the new market. A flood of related patents in a new market creates special problems for competition in addition to the usual problems that arise * Associate Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • The “Article of Manufacture” Today
    Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Volume 31, Number 2 Spring 2018 THE “ARTICLE OF MANUFACTURE” TODAY Sarah Burstein* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 782 II. BACKGROUND .............................................................................. 785 A. Design Patentable Subject Matter ............................................ 785 B. Design Patent Claiming & Infringement ................................. 786 C. Remedies for Design Patent Infringement ............................... 788 III. WHAT IS THE “ARTICLE OF MANUFACTURE” IN § 289?.............. 789 A. The Apple/Nordock Rule .......................................................... 791 B. The Supreme Court Weighs In ................................................. 791 IV. WHY COURTS SHOULD NOT ADOPT THE GOVERNMENT’S APPROACH .................................................................................... 793 A. The Test .................................................................................... 794 1. The Underlying Premise ........................................................ 795 2. The Factors ............................................................................ 797 B. The Nature of the Inquiry ......................................................... 802 1. A Case-by-Case Inquiry? ...................................................... 802 2. Is it a Question of Fact or Law? ............................................ 807 C. The Burden of Proof................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • You Secured a Utility Patent; Now What About Your Design Patent?
    BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT You Secured a Utility Patent; Now What About Your Design? John W. Boger, Esq. Heslin Rothenberg Farley & Mesiti P.C. any manufacturers forget that design patents can As noted above, a design patent application includes only one protect their inventions and increase the value of claim, referring specifically to the drawings within the applica- Mtheir intellectual property portfolio. Design patents tion. Therefore, drawings are mandatory for the application to be offer a different type of protection vs. a utility patent. Under- accepted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and standing the differences between design and utility patents must define the metes and bounds of the single claim as shown may be helpful in making the correct decision on what type of in the various views of the drawings. intellectual protection is appropriate. Depending upon how the drawings are configured, an appli- In a nutshell, utility patents protect the way that a device cation may cover only a portion of a device. For example, the works or is made. Design patents protect the design of an design patent is for a shovel; however, the patentee only wants article of manufacture, including how the device looks. to claim the handle, as opposed to the entire shovel. A great example of the power of design patents has been The patentee in this case would feature the handle in solid demonstrated between Apple and Samsung in various courts lines and the rest of the shovel would be shown in broken rather around the world over the past two years.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Legal Technology Risk Management
    THIRD CIRCUIT USES PROCEDURAL GROUNDS i JOURNAL OF LEGAL TECHNOLOGY RISK MANAGEMENT 1. THIRD CIRCUIT USES PROCEDURAL GROUNDS TO REJECT FCC’S WEAKENING OF MEDIA CROSS-OWNERSHIP RULES FOR A SECOND TIME IN PROMETHEUS RADIO PROJECT V. FCC 2. WHEN PARALLEL TRACKS CROSS: APPLICATION OF THE NEW INSIDER TRADING REGULATIONS UNDER DODD-FRANK DERAILS 3. ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY AND THE CONSTITUTION: INACCESSIBLE JUSTICE 4. RENEWING THE BAYH-DOLE ACT AS A DEFAULT RULE IN THE WAKE OF STANFORD V. ROCHE Volume 6 | Summer 2012 | Issue 1 (c) 2006-2012 Journal of Legal Technology Risk Management. All Rights Reserved. ISSN 1932-5584 (Print) | ISSN 1932-5592 (Online) | ISSN 1932-5606 (CD-ROM) www.ltrm.org II J. OF LEGAL TECH. AND RISK MGMT [Vol. 6 Editor-in-Chief Daniel B. Garrie, Esq. (USA) Guest Editor Kelly Merkel, Esq. (USA) Publications Editor Candice M. Lang, Esq. (USA) Executive Editors Matthew Armstrong, Esq. (USA) Dr. Sylvia Mercado Kierkegaard (Denmark) Scientific Council Stephanie A. “Tess” Blair, Esq. (USA) Hon. Amir Ali Majid (UK) Hon. Maureen Duffy-Lewis (USA) Micah Lemonik (USA) Andres Guadamuz (UK ) Carlos Rohrmann, Esq. (Brazil) Camille Andrews, Esq. (USA) Gary T. Marx (USA) William Burdett (USA) Eric A. Capriloi (France) Donald P. Harris (USA) Hon. Justice Ivor Archie (Trinidad & Tobago) ii Members Janet Coppins (USA) Eleni Kosta (Belgium) Dr. Paolo Balboni (Italy) Salvatore Scibetta, Esq. (USA) Ygal Saadoun (France/Egypt) Steve Williams, Esq. (USA) Rebecca Wong (United Kingdom) iii IV J. OF LEGAL TECH. AND RISK MGMT [Vol. 6 FOREWORD In this edition, we explore seemingly disparate realms of regulation and legislation and discover shared nuances in growing concern for current legal framework in all facets of legal practice and scholarship.
    [Show full text]
  • Evergreening" Metaphor in Intellectual Property Scholarship
    University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 2019 The "Evergreening" Metaphor in Intellectual Property Scholarship Erika Lietzan University of Missouri School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/facpubs Part of the Food and Drug Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Erika Lietzan, The "Evergreening" Metaphor in Intellectual Property Scholarship, 53 Akron Law Review 805 (2019). Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/facpubs/984 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DATE DOWNLOADED: Wed Jan 20 13:42:00 2021 SOURCE: Content Downloaded from HeinOnline Citations: Bluebook 21st ed. Erika Lietzan, The "Evergreening" Metaphor in Intellectual Property Scholarship, 53 AKRON L. REV. 805 (2019). ALWD 6th ed. Lietzan, E. ., The "evergreening" metaphor in intellectual property scholarship, 53(4) Akron L. Rev. 805 (2019). APA 7th ed. Lietzan, E. (2019). The "evergreening" metaphor in intellectual property scholarship. Akron Law Review, 53(4), 805-872. Chicago 7th ed. Erika Lietzan, "The "Evergreening" Metaphor in Intellectual Property Scholarship," Akron Law Review 53, no. 4 (2019): 805-872 McGill Guide 9th ed. Erika Lietzan, "The "Evergreening" Metaphor in Intellectual Property Scholarship" (2019) 53:4 Akron L Rev 805. AGLC 4th ed. Erika Lietzan, 'The "Evergreening" Metaphor in Intellectual Property Scholarship' (2019) 53(4) Akron Law Review 805.
    [Show full text]
  • 35 USC 101: Statutory Requirements and Four Categories of Invention
    35 USC § 101: Statutory Requirements and Four Categories of Invention August 2015 Office of Patent Legal Administration United States Patent and Trademark Office OVERVIEW TRAINING OVERVIEW: • The Requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 • The Four Statutory Categories (Step 1 of Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis) • Nonstatutory claim examples 3 35 U.S.C. § 101 Four Requirements Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 4 35 U.S.C. § 101 § 101 - Inventions Patentable: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. 5 35 U.S.C. § 101: Requirements Four Requirements in § 101 : • “A” patent – means only one patent granted for each invention. • Basis for statutory double patenting rejections. See MPEP 804. • “Useful” – the invention must have a specific, substantial, and credible utility. • “Utility” requirement – see MPEP 2107 for Utility Guidelines. • “Process, Machine, Manufacture, Composition of Matter” • “Subject matter eligibility” - these categories, as interpreted by the courts, limit the subject matter that is eligible for patenting. • “Whoever invents or discovers” • A patent may only be obtained by the person who engages in the act of inventing. 6 35 U.S.C. §101: Subject Matter Eligibility Subject Matter Eligibility- Statutory Categories of Invention 7 35 U.S.C. §101: Subject Matter Eligibility • The four statutory categories of invention: – Process, Machine, Manufacture, or Composition of Matter and Improvements Thereof • The courts have interpreted the statutory categories to exclude: – “Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” • These three terms are typically used by the courts to cover the basic tools of scientific and technological work, such as scientific principles, naturally occurring phenomena, mental processes, and mathematical algorithms.
    [Show full text]
  • According to the Patent Office, the Machine-Or-Transformation Test Is Alive and Well
    According to the Patent Office, the machine-or-transformation test is alive and well By Marc S. Kaufman Nixon Peabody attorneys will be continuously monitoring the state of the law and patent practice in view of Bilski v. Kappos and will issue periodic Alerts as new information comes available. This Alert is the second in the series following Monday’s ruling. In wake of the recent Supreme Court ruling in Bilski v. Kappos (95 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001; 2010 U.S. LEXIS 5521) the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued a Memo to Examiners indicating that the “machine-or-transformation test” should continue to be used to evaluate whether a patent claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. Section 101. The USPTO is relying on the fact that the majority Opinion in the Bilski case, while stating the machine-or- transformation test is not the sole test, called the machine-or-transformation test a “useful and important clue” in ascertaining whether a claim is patent eligible. The Memo sets up a rebuttable presumption of patent eligibility based on the test as set forth below: Examiners should continue to examine patent applications for compliance with section 101 using the existing guidance concerning the machine-or-transformation test as a tool for determining whether the claimed invention is a process under section 101. If a claimed method meets the machine-or-transformation test, the method is likely patent-eligible under section 101 unless there is a clear indication that the method is directed to an abstract idea.
    [Show full text]