December 6, 2018
Authored and Edited by Benjamin T. Hemmelgarn; Adriana L. Burgy
Three prominent IP groups propose amending § 101 to clarify what is patentable subject matter. The American Bar Association (ABA) IP Section, and the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) in a joint proposal with the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), cited the need resolve ambiguity in § 101 jurisprudence caused by recent Supreme Court decisions.
Both proposals keep the current four categories of patentable subject matter: process, machine, manufacture, and composition of matter, or any useful improvement thereof. Also, both proposals add language that explicitly exclude § 102, 103, or 112 considerations from the eligibility inquiry.
Where the proposals differ is how they define exceptions to eligibility. For the ABA IP Section, recent Supreme Court decisions shows that their primary concern with eligibility is the ability to claim the building blocks of innovation, which include laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. Therefore, an invention is ineligible if the claims would “preempt the use of others of all practical applications of a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea.” The IPO/AIPLA proposal, however, has two exceptions. First, an invention is ineligible if, as a whole, it “exists in nature independently of and prior to any human activity.” Second if an invention is performed solely in the human mind, it is also ineligible.
While the legislative proposals are largely similar, these differences in exceptions to eligibility may prove significant if Congress decides to revise the current § 101 language.
35 U.S.C. § 101, American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), subject matter eligibility
*Stacy Lewis is a Law Clerk at Finnegan
Copyright © 2018 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.