Difference between revisions of "Patent eligibility"
(In 2022, prospects brightened for clarification of patent eligibility ...) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
As of 2019, application of these decisions resulted in courts invalidating for patent ineligibility twice as many software patents as they sustained, and invalidating 25% more life science patents as upheld. | As of 2019, application of these decisions resulted in courts invalidating for patent ineligibility twice as many software patents as they sustained, and invalidating 25% more life science patents as upheld. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In 2022, prospects brightened for clarification of patent eligibility "in a case involving noisy driveshafts," because "[t]he US [[Solicitor General]] recommended [on May 24] that the justices step in to clarify how to determine whether or not an invention qualifies as one worthy of patent protection."<ref>https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/patent-eligibility-case-is-teed-up-for-next-supreme-court-term</ref> | ||
| + | == References == | ||
| + | {{reflist}} | ||
[[category:patents]] | [[category:patents]] | ||
Revision as of 00:49, May 30, 2022
Patent eligibility refers to the types of inventions which can be protected by a patent. Traditionally excluded are laws of nature, abstract ideas, and natural phenomena, but the scope of those exclusions has expanded in recent judicial decisions.
U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Bilski v. Kappos (2010) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (2014) made it more difficult to patent computer-related inventions by expanding the exclusion from eligibility of "abstract ideas," while Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus (2012) and Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics (2013), denied patents to life sciences under an expanded view of "laws of nature."
As of 2019, application of these decisions resulted in courts invalidating for patent ineligibility twice as many software patents as they sustained, and invalidating 25% more life science patents as upheld.
In 2022, prospects brightened for clarification of patent eligibility "in a case involving noisy driveshafts," because "[t]he US Solicitor General recommended [on May 24] that the justices step in to clarify how to determine whether or not an invention qualifies as one worthy of patent protection."[1]